|
Mary Kinzie (William C. and Ida Friday Senior Fellow) is the author of A Poet’s Guide to Poetry and six collections of poetry, including Summers of Vietnam, Autumn Eros, Ghost Ship, and Drift. She teaches in the creative writing program that she founded two decades ago at Northwestern University. During her fellowship at the National Humanities Center she has worked on a series of poems that arose from an exploration of the border between poetry and prose called “The Poems I Am Not Writing,” which appeared in Poetry magazine last year. In a recent interview she described the poems she has and hasn’t been writing, her efforts to break the stranglehold of blank verse, and how, despite taking a year away from her duties at Northwestern, she found herself leading a poetry seminar for a group of very advanced students.
You have described your essay, “The
Poems I Am Not Writing,” as a “first
attempt to negotiate between not writing
and writing” following a period in which
you struggled to bring new work to
fruition. How are you turning that first
attempt into a new collection of poems?
I am attempting to colonize new
material for myself, to identify and
explore new ways of thinking about my
past and about the imagination. It’s also
an attempt to appropriate prose for poetry
in my own way. Many other writers
have tried to do this, but I’ve been trying
for some time now to escape the stranglehold
of blank verse, unrhymed iambic
pentameter, which I can do in my sleep.
Once there’s too great a facility, there’s
the danger that one can be saying something
without meaning very much. So
I’ve tried all kinds of ruses and tricks to
distance myself from blank verse, including
experiments with writing in prose
first, in perfecting the prose, polishing it,
making it as perfect and expressive as it
can be within the boundary of acceptable
prose—and then seeing what it would
take to lift it out of prose into poetry.
Where has that led you?
The lines of these poems emerging
from “perfected prose” were very long
and that in turn helped me to start
writing longer-lined poems. To see how
a very long line could sustain itself,
because it has to be strong enough
for the ideas, feelings, images, and
metaphors to seem necessary in that
form, rather than simply a cobbling
of the National Humanities Center together of things that could be much
shorter. There has to be a felt necessity.
The meditation called “The Poems I Am
Not Writing” is on the face of it a meditation
in prose. What I’m trying to do
there is see whether I can reach a number
of different points at which prose
breaks open and becomes poetry. One of
the ways it does so is by needing to turn
into a short-line poem in the middle of
the prose meditation. But another way is
by meditating in a highly metaphorical
and intensely dramatized way. So there
are various kinds of hurdles and releasepoints
in that meditation.
At the Center you have been working on
a continuation of “The Poems I Am Not
Writing” called “Knot and Rubble.” You
have also spent time thinking about
California and T. S. Eliot’s longtime lover.
I’m fifteen pages into a series of
poems that reflect on California. I’ve
been thinking about Emily Hale, the
love of T. S. Eliot’s life, whom he kept
on a string for forty years or more. She
was “the lady of silences”; she was “the
hyacinth girl”; she turns up in his poetry
frequently. In the early nineteen-thirties
she was teaching temporarily at Scripps
in Claremont, and he came all the way
across the country by train to visit her
there. I’m thinking about that moment
when he might have come forward to
propose that he divorce Vivienne, who
was insane, and marry her, but he didn’t
have the moral stamina to do that. So
there’s something very bittersweet about
that meeting. It was an interlude out of
time. That was the start of my thinking
about California. But now I’m working
on a part of this poem about pollution
in California and how appalling it smells
when you get off the plane in the airport
nearest where my daughter goes to
school. I’ve been reading about the various
petrochemical sources of this smell
and how they’re building up. I don’t
know how much of what I’ve been
reading is going to work its way into
the eventual poem, but it’s as if I have to
walk all the way around it, even down all
the side roads that go off in the wrong
direction, before I figure out what it is I
want to say.
Once you have traveled those side roads,
how do you know when you have arrived
at a poem?
Well, there are two answers to that
question. One is the answer that I give
as an artist, which is, I just know. The
second is the answer that I would give in
a seminar, which would try to get people
thinking about the difference between
something that moves forward and
something that moves in a circular or
elliptical fashion. Because prose comes
from “prorsus,” which means “forward”—
forward narration, forward
movement. Poetry, however much it
might rely on logic, on narration, on
things that move from the present to the
future, from point A to point B, still differs
from prose in having a retrograde
orbit. The reason it’s hard to identify it
as different or to become conscious of it
as different is that poetry shares its language
with prose. It uses the same language
that prose does, but it doesn’t use
it the same way or with the same objective.
It’s not that prose is less metaphorical
than poetry, because some prose is
chock-full, or that metaphors in prose
are always illustrative and in poetry
they’re always dramatic. You can’t make
generalizations like that. But language
reflects on itself to create its own center
in poetry. I would define poetry as the
art of resemblance, controlled in time.
Controlling it in time and controlling
the reader’s consciousness of living in
time according to different schedules is
very important. Every period of poetic
artistry presents some features that stand
in the way or trip you or are extraneous.
It’s almost essential that the poet have
something to struggle against. Unless
you have something that resists you, you
don’t have anything to leap over.
When did you start writing poetry?
When I began teaching. The only way
I was able to understand the couplet or
terza rima was by writing in those forms.
And the only way to move inside the
forms was, for me at least, to imitate
others who wrote in them. To imitate
Byron’s stanzas or Wyatt’s, so that I
would get a sense of what any one form
was capable of doing in the past and
what it might be used for in the present.
Part of what makes a past a tradition is
the thematic use of poetic form. Take
the case of the sonnet, which begins as a
reflection of a spiritual experience, but in
secular terms. That’s what was taken over
by Spenser into English. Then the secular
part of it begins to dominate and
that’s what you have in Shakespeare. But
another twist occurs with John Donne,
who used the sonnet almost exclusively
to reflect the experience of religious
despair. And then there are other major
changes, such as, for example, the huge
alteration by the Romantics, Coleridge
and Wordsworth, when the sonnet
became the medium of looking at the
landscape, and seeing the numinous life
force in the natural world. The last crucial
change in the sonnet, a huge change,
was effected by W. H. Auden, who used
sonnets and sonnet cycles to argue about
politics, culture, and history. For each of
those changes, the sonnet had to change,
as it were, its “language,” even though it
still is the only form in English that is
freestanding in so few lines, and which
has its own built-in shape of argument.
We have talked a lot about form, but
what about emotion?
There is no way to pay homage to the
past, to reflect upon your learning, in a
poem that’s worth anything, if it doesn’t
have an emotional center. I don’t think
poetry has to be gut-wrenching to be
good. But I certainly know a lot of poetry
that is gut-wrenching that I admire
and a lot of poetry that’s gut-wrenching
and god-awful. Emotion is not necessary
for every good poem, but I find that the
poetry I care most about has a strong
element of that investment. I think
Wallace Stevens has it, but he’s not
everybody’s idea of an emotional poet;
he’s certainly not confessional. I also
think that different poets at different
stages pick up different models. The
people I’m reading now and feel most
spurred by are not the people I was reading
five years ago or ten years ago. It’s
important to move on, and also to
return to the people who were important
to you in the past, when you can see
them in a new light, and when they
speak differently to you, or when you
see their verbs and not their nouns.
At the Center you have had a year off
from running Northwestern’s writing
program, and yet when the fellows approached
you about leading a seminar,
you went back to work.
One or two of the fellows were saying
that they really enjoyed thinking about
how to write like that, whatever the
“that” was, and asked me how I did it.
I said, well, there’s no one way to do it.
What’s important is that you know
enough about the background of verse to
know what any example of it is attempting
to do. So that’s how it came about. I
would say that I’ve never taught a group
which had so deep and wide a variety of
grounding in all kinds of cultural disciplines.
I’ve never taught such intelligent
people! But at the same time, not very
many of them have had experience with,
or have come to terms with, what it
means to write poetry. It gives me a lot
of pleasure to help people to understand
things that they can take off and use,
not so much to write as to read. I’m
much more interested in training readers
than I am in training writers. A lot of
people freeze when they see verse. I
think by taking it a little bit slow, and
breaking it down—learning what lines
do to you as a reader—it’s possible to
smooth the way into the reading
experience.
Hear Mary Kinzie read and discuss her poems:
*Download the free QuickTime Player.
|