Showing posts with label Don Share. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Don Share. Show all posts

Monday, September 30, 2013

City of the Big Shoulders: An Anthology of Chicago Poetry, ed. Ryan G. Van Cleave



Wishbone

I have a bone to pick
with whoever runs this joint.
I don’t much like
being stuck out in the rain
just to feed on the occasional
vole or baby rabbit
and these wet weed-salads
confound my intestines.
A cat can’t throw himself
into the Chicago river,
not even in the luscious fall.
I get yelled at in human
language every single day
for things I can’t begin
to comprehend, let alone change.
But I go on cleaning myself—
why shouldn’t I?—
and so I think I smell sweet,
even though I suspect otherwise.
I wouldn’t harm a fly normally,
but why doesn’t anybody
take care of me? How am I
supposed to know that it’s Easter,
that I’m not allowed to die
in my own bed, and that neither prong
of this wishbone is meant for me? (Don Share)

Taking as its subject the City of Chicago itself is City of the Big Shoulders: An Anthology of Chicago Poetry, ed. Ryan G. Van Cleave (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2012). Over the past couple of years, Vancouver and Winnipeg have each produced anthologies along similar veins – A Verse Map of Vancouver, ed.George McWhirter (Vancouver BC: Anvil Press, 2009) and The Imagined City: A Literary History of Winnipeg, ed. David Arnason and Mhari Mackintosh (Winnipeg MB: Turnstone Press, 2005) – each utilizing and exploring their cities-as-subject in poetry specifically, and literature generally, predominantly by residents former and current. Chicago has long been known for a city of poets and poetry, from the origins of Poetry magazine over a century ago and Carl Sandburg’s Chicago Poems (1916) to more recent activity by poets such as Srikanth Reddy, Suzanne Buffam and Nathanaël, among others. The anthology explores and expands the mythology of the city by those who have known it, in whatever capacity, sent in after an initial call for submissions. As editor Ryan G. Van Cleave writes to end his introduction:









1916’s The Chicago Anthology: A Collection of Verse from the Work of Chicago Poets, edited by Charles G. Blanden and Minna Mathison, was one of the first attempts to define and present the poetry of Chicago as a distinctive, unified body of literature. Indeed, plenty of writers have gone on to be defined by their relationship to the city: Carl Sandburg, Karl Shapiro, George Dillon, Edgar Lee Masters, and Gwendolyn Brooks, to name just a few. And this anthology takes up the literary torch with some of America’s brightest poetic lights who’ve been touched by Chicago’s many inspirations. But by no means is the poetic conversation about Chicago over. It’s a vital, important part of the literary landscape of America, and it’s clear that new members are appearing daily. More than a few contributors remarked in their cover letters that the literature of Chicago is experiencing a renaissance. After seeing so many fine new writers and quality veterans, I’m inclined to agree.
            The poems in this anthology are not just beautiful objects to be enjoyed once and then put away. Savor the ones that seem written specifically for you. Consider the rest a challenge to be met. I guarantee at least three poems in this book will unlock a memory (real or imagined) of State Street vendor brats, the cacophony of smells that is the Taste of Chicago, or the sight of children skating at dusk at Daley Plaza – even if you’ve never been to the Windy City itself yet.
            Chicago is my hometown. No matter your background or interests, these poems do a fine job of making it yours too.

City of the Big Shoulders also provides an interesting counterpoint to the more author-specific anthology The City Visible: Chicago Poetry for the New Century, eds. William Allegrezza and Raymond Bianchi (Chicago Il: Cracked Slab Books, 2007) [see my review of such here]. I admit, I’m more interested in the sake of a geographic anthology to gain a sense of what kinds of writing and writer activity is happening within that arbitrary boundary, rather than an exploration of the personality of that geographic space. Still, I’m fascinated by the exploration of the myth of Chicago, one I’m very little aware of, but for the story of the city as central rail point, or inventor of the Second City comedy troupe, or namesake of that easy-listening shameful 1980s-era pop band. Who are you, really, Chicago?

Windy City

They wrote all over the rocks, the ones
who came before and come still; choicer
than graffiti, the paint cubed and letters
blocked like epitaphs: Acid or small groove
or baby cakes. And primary colors whet
the schools of foam the lake makes,
its mobile cursive less serene, while the city
wells above that trace of sociability—
its steeples snuffed, or nearly, in the mist:
this could have been Christminster,
or these the moral rocks Tess read
on her journey home in terrible,
delicate boots: the shores mirror us
always, but the city transpires. (Christina Pugh)

There are remarkably few names in this collection I’m previously aware of – but for Rachel Loden, Tony Trigilio and Don Share – meaning that the bulk of writers from the city working in an entirely different vein, including the more language-centred and more experimental poets are somehow absent from this collection. Contributors to the anthology include Barbra Nightingale, ElisePaschen, Janet Wondra, Vivian Shipley, Maya Quintero, Ellen Wehle, Susan Elbe and some two or three dozen others, each providing their own perspective on the windy city.

At the Crawford Coal-Fired Power Plant

As she inhales the scent of boiled eggs, the woman thinks of childhood, the farm she grew up on, the chicken coop down the hill from the clothesline. She thinks how back then, coal dust could coat sheets in a matter of minutes. Not anymore. These days it’s what she can’t see that worries her. But the plant manager says that this is a forward-thinking plant. Why? Because Crawford has reduced its mercury emissions ahead of schedule. And its nitrogen oxide emissions are down 30%. She doesn’t ask him what schedule. She doesn’t ask how much mercury or nitrogen oxide a person should breathe. Nor does she ask why the plant has been in the news in the past few years for spewing deadly toxins into the Chicago air and increasing the risk and incidence rate of asthma. She’s a guest here, so she smiles and nods when he hands her a hardhat, goggles, and orange earplugs. The building hums and throbs around them. She can barely make out his words as he shouts and points. She sees the pulverizer where the coal is crushed and blown into a furnace. She sees the boiler, the precipitator, and the fireball that glows like a small sun. In one room fly ash lands on her black sweater. She tries to brush it off, but it sticks to the cashmere. She asks if she should wear a facemask. She asks if the ash is dangerous. No, no, he says. These days we collect the ash from the precipitator and gather it into bins. Then we sell it for cement. But it’s in the air, she tries to tell him, pointing to the ash she sees rising like dust. She’s not sure he hears her. She’s not sure he sees what she means. He keeps opening and closing his mouth, as if to reassure her, as if to explain that everything is fine. She has nothing to worry about here. (Nin Andrews)

Perhaps this might be a matter of the style itself in which those more experimental poets work, given that subject was the centre of the collection (or perhaps these writers simply didn’t submit to the original submission call), a call more easily suited to a narrative, metaphor-driven lyric style. This also means that the work within the collection are predominantly, if not entirely exclusively, from the previous decade. It would have been interesting to have seen an anthology that worked archivally, to actually dig through the past half-century or so of Chicago (and further) writing, to see how the city has been already depicted, instead of the fraction of the anthology that appears to have been composed for the call itself. How has the city already been discussed, and by whom? What kind of portrait of the city has already been painted?


Sunday, December 30, 2012

12 or 20 (second series) questions with Don Share

Don Share is Senior Editor of Poetry magazine.  His books include Squandermania (Salt Publishing), Union (Zoo Press), Seneca in English (Penguin Classics), and most recently a new book of poems, Wishbone (Black Sparrow), and Bunting’s Persia (Flood Editions), which explores the British poet Basil Bunting’s time in the Middle East; Share has also edited a critical edition of Bunting’s work for Faber and Faber. His translations of Miguel Hernández, collected in I Have Lots of Heart (Bloodaxe Books) were awarded the Times Literary Supplement Translation Prize, and will appear in a revised edition from New York Review of Books Classics.  He has been Poetry Editor of Harvard Review and Partisan Review, Editor of Literary Imagination, and curator of poetry at Harvard University.  With Christian Wiman, he co-hosts the monthly Poetry magazine podcast and has co-edited The Open Door: One Hundred Poems, One Hundred Years of Poetry Magazine (University of Chicago Press).

1 - How did your first book change your life? How does your most recent work compare to your previous? How does it feel different?

That first book changed my life by, well, by failing to change my life.  I thought it would be momentous, and momentously gratifying, but though it was given a good write-up in Publishers Weekly, the press died suddenly and ignominiously, and so then did the book.  It was devastating and humbling, so maybe the change consisted of teaching me not to be excessively proud of myself. 

In my earlier work I was very careful with each poem in a technical sense.  I’m older now, and as I go to pot, so does my prosody: I’ve let myself go to seed, and take that metaphor rather literally – it has been, shall we say, productive.  Then again my early poems were written pre 9/11, and my language, like everyone else’s in our culture, has come to incorporate a version of (for lack of a worse word) instress.

2 - How did you come to poetry first, as opposed to, say, fiction or non-fiction?
I actually came to fiction first.  When I was done with college, I was out of work for a while and sat down to write a novel: six hours a day, nothing but writing and some coffee.  The result was abject and appalling junk.  I’d always loved poetry, but thought it was too good for me.  But the humiliation of writing prose ended up teaching me the writerly humility required to take up poetry in, as they say, earnest.  As for non-fiction, well, I simply haven’t got the requisite diligence or patience.

3 - How long does it take to start any particular writing project? Does your writing initially come quickly, or is it a slow process? Do first drafts appear looking close to their final shape, or does your work come out of copious notes?

I don’t have writing projects.  I realize that they’re very trendy, but I disbelieve in them.  Anyway, writing for me is a slow process because I’m in no hurry, and can’t think that writing is like running, that the more you do it the better you are.  If that were true the most prolific among us would be the best, and it’s just not so (and how would we account for Larkin, Empson, among others?).

Because I have a job that requires my attention at just about all times, I have to write whenever life lets me do so, which is to say when I’m on the train to work, or pushing myself to stay up late into the night with a notebook in my lap.  This induces a kind of pertinent reverie, so I don’t mind at all. 

When I started out, I revised poems for years.  I don’t know how many years I have left, so now I revise them for months.  My drafts do resemble final versions; the relationship is genetic, but a poem can seem to grow up before your eyes almost the way a child goes.  Then you let it leave home.

4 - Where does a poem usually begin for you? Are you an author of short pieces that end up combining into a larger project, or are you working on a "book" from the very beginning?

A poem begins for me as a mystery.  That’s all I can say about it.  Short pieces for me used to get woven into larger work, but now I let them stand alone and fend for themselves.  If they’re too weak to stand, I just kill them off.  I do somehow seem to know when things are part of what might become a “book.”  It’s a question of knowing when and where to begin – and when to leave off.

5 - Are public readings part of or counter to your creative process? Are you the sort of writer who enjoys doing readings?
The best critique of a poem, in my experience, comes from having to read it in front of other people.  If something sucks and you’re not being dense or perverse, an audience will let you know that… vividly.  It’s not right to use people in this way, but we all do it, yes?  That said, I enjoy doing readings, and try to do them well, because I know how difficult it is to sit through them.

There’s a story that comes to mind.  I was in, shall we say, a bad way when trying to write the poems that went into Squandermania.  At a reading for Amherst Books, I read aloud the angriest poems I thought I’d ever written.  And people started laughing – a lot.  At first, I was pretty confused and upset; I figured that I’d misjudged things so badly that I felt I’d better give up writing altogether.  But then I realized how right my listeners were: the pathos of personal anger really is comedic.  That insight put me on what felt like the right track, after all.

6 - Do you have any theoretical concerns behind your writing? What kinds of questions are you trying to answer with your work? What do you even think the current questions are?
Lord no, no theoretical concerns.  I’d have to be a philosopher or scientist or rabbi to address those adequately.  It’ll sound portentous (part of the comedy, really), but it feels as if my poems are asking questions.  Asking me questions.  Like what the fuck do you think you’re doing?  I’ve yet to come up with any answers.

7 – What do you see the current role of the writer being in larger culture? Does s/he even have one? What do you think the role of the writer should be?

I’m sure that the writer has a role in larger culture, alongside all the other kinds of roles that makers and doers have.  But I can’t really say what that role consists of, exactly.  I suppose the role of a writer is to write, and take his lumps, and then lie down, as Machado says, under the ground.

8 - Do you find the process of working with an outside editor difficult or essential (or both)?

I’ve never had an outside editor, as such, for poetry.  Well, once, the poetry editor of a pretty well-known magazine said he would publish a poem of mine if he could rewrite it.  I was so charmed and fascinated that I let him do it.  He did a worse job than I did.  I wouldn’t let it happen again.  Poets are pretty much left to their own devices.

9 - What is the best piece of advice you've heard (not necessarily given to you directly)?

There’s an Allan Sherman song, “Good Advice,” which nicely points out that good advice is just the same as bad advice. “Good advice costs nothing, and it's worth the price.”  (Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MInOApCkA98)  That’s about it.

10 - How easy has it been for you to move between genres (poetry to critical prose)? What do you see as the appeal?
Critical prose is very hard to do.  I adore reading it, and am relieved not to have to write it.  Most of what gets called poetry criticism now is really just book reviewing mislabeled, or writing for the entirely understandable purpose of academic credentialing.  Mostly, I’m lucky enough to get away with blogging, or writing pieces of what used to be called “appreciation.” 

11 - What kind of writing routine do you tend to keep, or do you even have one? How does a typical day (for you) begin?

I don’t have any kind of routine.  I do carry all the implements with me, in case there’s a chance to work on something.  Otherwise, I’m just living what passes for my life.  And so a typical day begins for me with my eyes opening and becoming adjusted somehow to the light… after which I let the coffee and anxiety kick in.  The rest, as they say, is hysteria.

12 - When your writing gets stalled, where do you turn or return for (for lack of a better word) inspiration?

When my writing gets stalled, I figure it’s my writing’s way of telling me to shut the hell up.  So I stop.  And then, unaccountably, it starts up again, particularly thanks to reading a lot (and not just reading poetry).  At some point, one will have worked on his very last poem, but they don’t tell you when that moment comes.

13 - What fragrance reminds you of home?

Great question!  Memphis BBQ.

14 - David W. McFadden once said that books come from books, but are there any other forms that influence your work, whether nature, music, science or visual art?


All of the above.  But beyond influence, one needs stimulation.  The crap that happens every day is the stimulus (I spend a lot of time on public transportation in a vast city, which is quite nicely stimulating).  Books come, in other words, from life.

15 - What other writers or writings are important for your work, or simply your life outside of your work?

The list changes daily, sometimes even hourly.  Louise Gluck says that we feed on other writers and move on.  That’s pretty accurate (and vivid).  We’re cannibals, aren’t we, when we read and write?

16 - What would you like to do that you haven't yet done?

Once when I was young, one of my mentors, Derek Walcott (the other was George Starbuck) shoved a sheaf of okay-ish drafts back at me and said, “This is fine, but it’s not a life’s work.”  He was right about that.  So what I would like to have accomplished, and have not yet, is something resembling a life’s work.

17 - If you could pick any other occupation to attempt, what would it be? Or, alternately, what do you think you would have ended up doing had you not been a writer?

Well, I’ve had all kinds of odd jobs in my life already.  I’m quite happy doing the work I do now, thank you very much.  If I hadn’t been a writer, well, Patrick Kavanagh has the best response.  [You won’t be able to use the whole quote, but here it is! - ]

“I am always shy of calling myself a poet and I wonder much at those young men and sometimes those old men who boldly declare their poeticality. If you ask them what they are, they say: Poet.

There is, of course, a poetic movement which sees poetry materialistically. The writers of this school see no transcendent nature in the poet; they are practical chaps, excellent technicians. But somehow or other I have a belief in poetry as a mystical thing, and a dangerous thing.

A man (I am thinking of myself) innocently dabbles in words and rhymes and finds that it is his life. Versing activity leads him away from the paths of conventional unhappiness. For reasons that I have never been able to explain, the making of verses has changed the course of one man’s destiny. I could have been as happily unhappy as the ordinary countryman in Ireland. I might have stayed at the same moral age all my life. Instead of that, poetry made me a sort of outcast. And I was abnormally normal…

I suppose when I come to think of it, if I had a stronger character, I might have done well enough for myself. But there was some kink in me, put there by Verse…

But I lost my messianic compulsion. I sat on the bank of the Grand Canal in the summer of 1955 and let the water lap idly on the shores of my mind. My purpose in life was to have no purpose.”

18 - What made you write, as opposed to doing something else?

See above.  I really have no idea.  And yet… my fifth grade teacher - to punish me for doodling rather than taking notes on his lecture about volcanoes - smacked me on the crown of the head with the stone in his bulky class ring, exclaiming "One day, Don is going to be a GREAT WRITER." The gauntlet... almost literally... was laid down. Pete Townshend had his nose for motivation; I had Mr. Kramer.

19 - What was the last great book you read? What was the last great film?

Volume 4 of W. H. Auden’s collected prose.  It was a better education for me than college!  Last great film?  2001: A Space Odyssey, which I saw in Cinerama in 1968.  I do think Spielberg’s Duel is a minor classic.  I don’t get out much, as you can see.

20 - What are you currently working on?
A book of poems that are one sentence long each – not to be confused with tweets, by the way.  In looking over a pile of recent drafts, I realized that almost every poem has maybe one good line in it; why not, I thought, just cut to the chase and keep that one line?

12 or 20 (second series) questions;