Showing posts with label gillian hamel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gillian hamel. Show all posts

Monday, April 17, 2017

Friday, May 5th @ 7:30 pm featuring Gillian Olivia Blythe Hamel, 최 Lindsay and Lorraine Lupo!

Please join us on Friday, May 5th @ 7:30 pm,
for the release of Gillian Olivia Blythe Hamel's occident,
featuring Gillian Olivia Blythe Hamel,
최 Lindsay and Lorraine Lupo!

Event is FREE.
Lagunitas beer, wine and snacks will be served.

Studio One Art Center | 365 45th Street | Oakland, CA | 94609
Here's a map.

+ gratitude & love to our sponsors:

Author bios and photos follow below.

Gillian Olivia Blythe Hamel’s work has appeared in VOLT, jubilat, The Volta, and The Offending Adam, and was recently featured in the Aesthetic Blitz exhibition from the Asian American Women Artists Association. Her first book, occident, is forthcoming from Called Back Books in 2017. She is managing editor at Omnidawn Publishing and editor of OmniVerse. Gillian also co-publishes speCt!, a chapbook series and book arts imprint, with Peter Burghardt and Robert Andrew Perez.


최 Lindsay is a diasporic Korean poet and a student at UC Berkeley, where they study literature and philosophy, and work as the managing editor of Berkeley Poetry Review. They were selected as a finalist in Omnidawn's 2016 chapbook contest, and have poems published or forthcoming in HOLD: A Journal, The Felt, Omniverse, and Apogee's print and online publications. They can be found on Twitter @chwelinji.

Lorraine Lupo is the author of By Way Of (Green Zone Editions). Her work has appeared in or is forthcoming from The New England Review, Fourteen Hills, The Art Book Review and Across The Margin, among others. She edits the Periodic Postcard series and lives in Oakland, Ca.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Friday, June 3rd @ 7:30 pm, feat. Gillian Olivia Blythe Hamel, David Lau and Garrett Caples


  Please join us on Friday, June 3rd @ 7:30 pm for a reading w. 
Gillian Olivia Blythe Hamel, David Lau and Garrett Caples! 

Event is FREE.

Wine, Lagunitas beer and snacks will be served.

Studio One Art Center | 365 45th Street | Oakland, CA | 94609

Here's a map.

& as always, a huge thanks to our sponsors!




Gillian Olivia Blythe Hamel’s work has appeared in VOLT, jubilat, The Volta, and The Offending Adam, and was recently featured in the Aesthetic Blitz exhibition from the Asian American Women Artists Association. Her first book, occident, is forthcoming from Called Back Books in 2017. She is managing editor at Omnidawn Publishing and editor of OmniVerse. Gillian also co-publishes speCt!, a chapbook series and book arts imprint, with Peter Burghardt and Robert Andrew Perez. She lives in Oakland, California.

David Lau's poetry and essays have appeared widely (in Boston Review, The American Reader, Armed Cell, New Orleans Review, Los Angeles Review of Books, and New Left Review). His first book of poetry, Virgil and the Mountain Cat, was described by the Believer as "simultaneously creative and destructive … grounded in—or rather, trapped by—the present." Commune Editions will publish his second book this August; Still Dirty finds its bearings in the political struggles after the economic crisis. In 2009, he was chosen as a Poetry Society of America New American Poet. Lau is also the author of the chapbook Bad Opposites (2012). With Cal Bedient, he edits the journal Lana Turner. A graduate of UCLA and the Iowa Writers' Workshop, he is a lecturer at UC Santa Cruz, where he first began teaching in 2005. He has also taught poetry at UC Berkeley and in the MFA program at Saint Mary's College. 

Garrett Caples is the author of the forthcoming Power Ballads (Wave, 2016), as well as earlier poetry collections The Garrett Caples Reader (Angle, 1999) and Complications (Meritage, 2007).  He wrote the essay book Retrievals (Wave, 2014), and co-edited Incidents of Travel in Poetry: New and Selected Poems by Frank Lima (City Lights, 2016) and Collected Poems of Philip Lamantia (California, 2013).  He curates the Spotlight Poetry Series for City Lights.
 

 

Monday, November 28, 2011

phrases/fragments: a conversation on lyric modes, the sentence, politics and the social

Barbara Claire Freeman, Jenny Drai, Gillian Hamel, Elizabeth Robinson and Brian Teare read on December 2nd at Studio One Art Center at 7:30 pm.

We consider how composing with the phrase as the basic measure differs from composing by sentence, how it is or offers a different compositional field, why one chooses it…


Barbara Claire Freeman:
Taking the phrase, rather than the clause or sentence, as the measure for a poem is something I find both occasionally necessary and utterly mysterious. There's a certain kind of "landscape" (both internal and external, musical and syntactical) that demands the phrase, the white spaces between phrases, no punctuation or capitalization—a landscape for which the sentence, no matter how devious or disjunctive, isn't appropriate. (Of course the reverse is also true: certain "landscapes" demand sentences of various kinds.) Composing by phrase allows a certain kind of quietness and an accentuation of the pauses and silences that accrue around and within and between the linked phrasal units. I find that I compose-by-phrase especially when I want to write an exceptionally stripped, bare, slowed-down poem. And would love to know more about how/when/why others employ this form(?)


Elizabeth Robinson:
I feel a great deal of affinity for the way Barbara articulates this. To me, the landscape of the sentence is more assertional. It says of itself, "I am complete. I state something incontrovertible." As Barbara says, there are poetic sites where one wants that. To me, the phrase is more lyric, less assertive. Maybe it's kind of a foreground/background thing: the sentence surges to the foreground. The phrase is attentive to its larger context. In that way, it measures sound and idea differently, more gesturally. In relation to the phrase, I think of Barbara Guest's idea that every poem carries within it, ghostlike, all the decisions that the poet didn't make but could have. That might be the the mysteriousness that Barbara cites: the phrase remains open to other possibilities/articulations that the poem accepts as present but doesn't necessarily need to fulfill.


Jenny Drai:
I can relate to both Barbara and Elizabeth's responses and especially to the idea from Barbara Guest. Also, at some point I think the phrase/fragment allows for the espousal of an idea in lyric language even as it maintains a certain sort of hiding place, a site for the shifting and cloaking of ideas that float more freely than they ever could if they were tethered to the construct of the sentence. To add to that, I can say for myself that (I think) when I write in sentences, it is because I have something very definitive to say, whereas when I compose in a more fragmented form, I am exploring an idea of which I am still discovering the shape.


Gillian Hamel:
I particularly like Elizabeth's idea: 'the phrase is attentive to its larger context.' To me, the sentence's completeness creates a kind of idiosyncrasy as well, a couching in personal terms and the perspectival logic of the subject-verb-object construction—there is always a centering, particular view woven into the syntax of a full sentence. Conversely, the phrase becomes more public, collective—the ownership of the language recedes and the language becomes its own subject and object. In this sense I also relate very much to Jenny's idea of the phrase as something more exploratory—the openness of the phrase invites the questions and the plurality of voices that are always present at the borders of the poem, absently suggested but never explicitly permitted by the singularity of the subject-driven sentence.


Brian Teare:
So much of what has been said echoes my own experience of working in and with fragment. So rather than reiterate, I'd like to pick up something Jenny said—about working with fragment as an exploratory mode—and embellish it. Though for me as a thinker and believer the fragment is deeply epistemological (i.e. suggests that our mode of knowing is always already incomplete), for me as a working writer it is primarily prosodic. Its prosody has less allegiance to logos and more allegiance to melos, by which I mean the fragment supplies a more flexible, improvisatory compositional frame, one in which I follow ear/err from sound to sound, tracking suggestive and gestural noise associatively. It's a lyric logic, one with much room for stutter and gap.


Sara Mumolo:
At a work related event today a woman on a panel said: “Everything we encounter is an argument.” Considering the resonance of this declaration, I feel grateful for the occurrence of this thread, awaiting me through the day’s arguments.

Poetry activates a space where we can depart from the inundation of arguments, if we choose to enter it. Barbara Guest says, in her talk at Buffalo from the early nineties, “Getting out of Poetry and into Prose”: "The poem is our act of special beneficence, and the Poet is rewarded the halo. The Poet is unaware of the halo, just as in the painting the persons are unaware of the halo, but it’s there as a reward for a particular unconscious state of imminence.” This quality of being ‘about to occur’ is where the phrase enters into the compositional field for my phrasal poems, some of which appear in the chapbook. It allows space, as Barbara Freeman mentioned, where the poems appear stripped down, and I find it essential that this mode not sculpt but rather, that the poems indicate a bareness.

For example, the sentence offers the argument and, as Gillian pointed out, the logic of a complete thought. Yet, the explicitness and possible arrogance of such completeness was not a consideration when engaging the subject of the nude—and all that she carries in the landscape of the painting. Rather, the phrase occurred instinctually, as a mode I only came to understand while it was occurring. That’s when that busted version of a halo, that “particular unconscious state of imminence” empowers the phrasal mode. The complete thought became more important to poem as a whole, the sequence as an entity, rather than the line or sentence.

Like Jenny, the sentence appears most attractive to employ when I have something definitive to say, or argue. Composing in the phrasal mode lifts me upward in some way, allowing me to write in altered states of being, states that more properly engage visceral realities (the sound in the body/bodies)—not that of social media, police and news reports, emails, bills… Each of those things works by creating space, multiple barricades, between the viewer and the painting, the user and the network. With the phrase, I can exhibit a space less ornamented, one like Brian mentions when he writes that our mode of knowing is always already incomplete. This incompleteness suggests absence, especially as confusion around our lack of being present in a space mutates. The occupation movement argues against these barricades between people and wealth, through what initially was a guttural-response-mode in its attempts to be present, to occupy. Phrasal composition could offer recognition for spiritual or empowering spaces we occupy.


Jenny Drai: "Poetry activates a space where we can depart from the inundation of arguments, if we choose to enter it. " I like this statement from Sara's response as well as the idea that there may be some arrogance attached to the sentence. I will add that the main problem I have
had in the past with the standard, straightforwardly correct sentence is that it takes its grammar for granted. Before the fragmentation I employed in the poem sequence from which the pieces in the anthology were chosen, I wrote in sentences, but disjunctive ones. So in their
own way, they were also full of 'stutter and gap' (Brian). I thought it was necessary to show a rupture within that otherwise apparently seamless entity, to show the work involved, to show that someone had been there, had constructed. Now, with the fragment mode, with this idea that the reader can engage with what might be 'about to occur,' (also Gillian's statement that "the phrase becomes more public, collective") I concede that now any reader can construct alongside the author. So maybe the fragment mode could in some ways be construed as an at least somewhat democratic mode of poetry—remaining authorial in the sense of setting theme, diction, etcetera, but always opening, opening, opening to the reader... I almost want to say that some of this sounds similar to the ideas behind L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry, but my knowledge of poetic movements in this country is decidedly lacking. I would argue that maybe while I don't necessarily feel as if I compose what I write from some deep collective well of language (too stubborn for that!), I am really learning from this thread that writing in the fragment mode allows me to be read individually, idiosyncratically, and (therefore, in a weird way, and perhaps paradoxically) collectively. What do others think?


Gillian Hamel:
This idea of reading collectively, of viewing social movement and conversation through the lens of the poetic mode (and vice versa) really resonates with me and seems particularly important to the construction and logic of the fragment. Careful of being swept up in the adrenaline of a political movement—of letting my poetics succumb to the argument, to use Sara's logic, the phrasal/fragmented composition becomes a way for me to mediate the plurality of perspectives, problems, narratives engaging my perception of the political moment. A way to really engage 'diversity of tactics' where news reports and editorials and general assembly proposals fall short—where the argument of the sentence fails and must be transcended. This also makes me think of the role of poetry in politics (not in the perversion of detached politicians wearing suits and waving proposals, but in the real sense of the polis, the endlessly transformative and exploratory sense of the people trying to coexist pragmatically) and vice versa. Poetry is often a negotiation of great spatial collectivity (drawing on the deep well of language, which I agree with Jenny is impersonal and unappealing) and aggressive intimacy. Exploring and engaging the pieces and particulars of speech is a part of this—writing toward, as opposed to from, a collectivity. In this sense, the fragment becomes a way to engage the rupture, the 'stutter and gap,' which frees it from personal argument while creating the awareness of speech as intimate as the individual; bodies standing together in the streets, rather than arguing on the internet.


Elizabeth Robinson:
Thanks for this, Gillian. I'm having several feelings and thoughts that I'll try to state here, but they are not full thoughts yet (fragments, I guess). The piece I wrote for the anthology had to do with an epidemic of bat deaths across the country—the threat to that population. In the moment, I wasn't writing a poem to raise awareness of this phenomenon. I was responding with sadness. The fragment as a tonal signal or gesture. I'm not sure I can relate this to what I'm seeing in the news or online, but the violence against peaceful protesters is impacting me somewhat the same way. In 1980-1981, I was a student at UC Davis and during the Whole Earth Festival, on the same quad where a policeman sprayed pepper spray into the faces of students who were merely sitting, I served on the "Karma Patrol." I can't help remarking the contrast. We just wore green t-shirts and were supposed to wander around making sure that people were okay. There was a playfulness to the role even though the responsibilities were earnest. I had a corresponding feeling when I saw footage of the students who returned to Sproul Plaza after police brutality: sailing tents filled with helium balloons. I felt moved by it and happy. Obviously, as a political gesture it wasn't determinative, but, again, the sense of playfulness resurgent after something really ugly felt very hopeful to me. So again, fragment, gesture as tonal, and tone as something that is more important than commonly think it to be.


Brian Teare:
I really like how we seem to have moved from a consideration of the fragment as a lyric mode to a consideration of the fragment as a way to engage the social differently. It seems that many of us view the fragment as a way to avoid falling into the trap of pure discursion while also subverting the bad politics of traditional grammar that many feminist and queer theorists and writers have objected to: subject-fucks-object. Am I hearing/reading this the right way? If so, it makes sense that the poetic fragment could make possible different kinds of social relation with the reader through language, ones less hierarchical and more relational. In Gillian's account, it is as though the speech-based poetic fragment were a phenomenological extension of bodies, a way to possibly encounter and experience significant otherness. I like this, and I like Elizabeth's tonal gesture, and they make me think about the fragment-based lyric as a somatic space of potential encounters—yes, a kind of collectivity, though perhaps different than the one Jenny writes about. What if the lyric fragment is a form that mimics the body-mind in relationship to its environment? Anyone or anything might enter through the doors of perception and begin to talk or to provoke sensation, which is why this mode strikes me as vulnerable to meaning: it is so open and multiple.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Friday December 2nd with Jenny Drai, Barbara Claire Freeman, Gillian Hamel, Sara Mumolo, Elizabeth Robinson and Brian Teare

Studio One Reading Series is going on hiatus. Join us for the last reading! 7:30 pm.

A reading for the chapbook anthology phrases/fragments: an anthology with poems from Jenny Drai, Barbara Claire Freeman, Gillian Hamel, Sara Mumolo and Elizabeth Robinson. Introduction by Brian Teare.









Jenny Drai was raised near Chicago and has lived in Wisconsin,
Schleswig-Holstein, Munich, Oakland, the Los Angeles area, and
currently in Vancouver, Washington. Among other things, she has
worked as an Au Pair, a bartender, a bookseller, and as a researcher
for a historical consultancy. She received an MFA in poetry from
Saint Mary's College of California and was a finalist for the 2011
Sawtooth Prize from Ahsahta Press.

Barbara Claire Freeman is literary critic and professor of literature who has recently turned her full attention to writing poetry. She is the author of The Feminine Sublime
(University of California Press, 1998, pbk. 2000), among other works of criticism.
Formerly an Associate Professor of English at Harvard, she teaches creative writing in
the Rhetoric Department at the University of California, Berkeley.

Incivilities, her first collection of poems, was published by Counterpath Press in November, 2009; a chapbook, St. Ursula's Silence, was published by Instance Press in 2010. Selections from these collections won the Boston Review/Discovery Prize and the Language Exchange Prize. Recent work has appeared or is forthcoming in A Public Space, Agriculture Reader, Boston Review, Colorado Review, Crazyhorse, Forklift, Ohio, Jacket, Seattle Review, and Volt, among others.



Gillian Olivia Blythe Hamel lives in Oakland, California, and holds an MFA in Poetry from St. Mary’s College. Her work has appeared in the chapbook series Calaveras and will appear in the forthcoming anthology phrases/fragments. She has worked on various small print and online publications around the Bay Area, including Mary, A Journal of New Writing, and is a poetry editor and senior blog editor for Omnidawn Publishing.

Sara Mumolo is a poetry editor at Omnidawn and works for the MFA Program in Creative Writing and the Center for Environmental Literacy at Saint Mary’s College of California. She has curated the Studio One Reading Series since 2008 and, with Alisa Heinzman, she publishes the series CALAVERAS. Her chapbook March was published by Cannibal Books in 2011. Poems have also appeared in 1913: a journal of forms, Typo, Eleven Eleven, Shampoo, Lana Turner and West Wind Review, among others.

Elizabeth Robinson's most recent poetry collection is Three Novels, from Omnidawn. Other recent books are The Orphan & its Relations (Fence) and Also Known As (Apogee). Robinson will teach at the University of Montanain the spring of 2012. Otherwise, she lives reluctantly in Boulder, CO. With Colleen Lookingbill, she coedits EtherDome Chapbooks, and with Beth Anderson and Laura Sims she coedits Instance Press.

A former National Endowment for the Arts fellow, Brian Teare is the recipient of poetry fellowships from the MacDowell Colony, the American Antiquarian Society, and the Headlands Center for the Arts. He is the author of The Room Where I Was Born, Sight Map, the Lambda-award winning Pleasure, and Companion Grasses, forthcoming from Omnidawn in 2013. An Assistant Professor at Temple University, he lives in Philadelphia, where he makes books by hand for his micropress, Albion Books.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Fall First Fridays at Studio One


* September 2nd with music from Peter Burghardt. Poems from Cassandra Smith and Ben Mirov
* October 7th with Heather Christie, Brandon Downing and Daniel Tiffany
* November 4th with Sandra Doller and Ben Doller
* December 2nd with Gillian Hamel, Jenny Drai, Sara Mumolo, Barbara Claire Freeman, Elizabeth Robinson and Brian Teare for Phrases/Fragments: an anthology release reading published by Achiote Press



Image details:
Deer
2009 Finalist
River of Words
Jacob Scott, Age 12
Tell City, Indiana
Tell City Junior High
Teacher: Kyle Miles

Thursday, August 27, 2009

September 4th!

First Friday at Studio One!
September 4th
check it out: poetry & video by

Gillian Hamel’s poetry has appeared or is forthcoming in Sorry IV Snake, Back Room Live, and Calaveras. She is a professional paper-shuffler who offers editorial assistance for fellow writers, local publishers, and the grammatically impaired, and is currently pursuing an MFA in creative writing at St. Mary’s College of California.



Scott V. lives and works in Oakland, Ca. He is a husband, a dog owner, and a salesman. Visit him at: www.ahatandahandgrenade.


Truong Tran is a poet and visual artist. His publications include, The Book of Perceptions, Placing The Accents, dust and conscience (awarded the San Francisco Poetry Center Book Prize in 2002), within the margin and Four Letter Words. He is the recipient numerous awards and fellowships including two San Francisco Arts Commission Individual Artist Grants in poetry, The Arts Council of Silicon Valley Grant, The Califoria Arts Council Grant, The Creative Work Fund Grant, The Fund For Poetry Grant and most recently The San Francisco Arts Commission Grant in Visual Arts. Truong lives in San Francisco, teaches at SFSU and is a Visiting Professor at Mills College. He will have a solo exhibition of his artwork in Feb. 2010 at The Mina Dresden Gallery in San Francisco.


Doors at 7
Reading at 730 (sharp, for reals)
donation for entry
wine and beer by donation

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Gillian Hamel interviews Geoffrey G. O'Brien

Owing to technology's accessibility and the sort of compressed sense of time we all feel as extremely busy/important/modern people, I conducted this interview with Geoffrey G. O'Brien via e-mail. What follows is an illuminating response to this accessibility and compression and its effect on the world of contemporary poetry as it expands or possibly [hinders--this word sucks but I can't think of a better one] it. O'Brien decided to reply to my last and fourth question first: questions 1-3 follow..Gillian Hamel.

Gillian Hamel: You seem to keep a lower profile than many contemporary poets in terms of giving or attending readings and lectures, putting out blogs or criticism, and generally maintaining a public persona. What are your thoughts on the role of the poet as a figure in the artistic community against or alongside just being an artist?

Geoffrey G. O'Brien: I want to start with your last question first, in part bc the ambivalence I feel around the fact/question of public presence has made me late in responding to this interview form, despite your great questions and the good feeling that surrounds the Studio One series. I've been reluctant to produce much of a net footprint (blog/comment-fielding/interviews, etc.) bc I'm paralytically aware of what good intentions can devolve into on the web, a space, like every other cultural space capital permits and maintains, that's characterized by brevity and disposability and by the reaction-attributes that accompany brevity and disposability: speed, loudness and, often, aggression, contempt, caricature, branding, etc. It's not that I don't think mutual regard and atelic inquiry can happen in the thereless there, they do, but not often enough and not thoroughly enough for me to see it as a peculiarly exciting public space for thinking about poetry with others. And it's hard for me to risk thought about poetry with such uncertainty about fellowship.

I guess I'm saying the web doesn't feel like much more of a public space than any of the other spaces that are supposed to pass for a commons--is there really anything inherent in its technology and protocols that should make it more likely to sustain regenerate exchange? Its main difference from meeting for coffee is bodilessness, which it shares with other material modes of writing (codex, graffiti), and its main difference from other material modes of writing is the speed and width of its transmission. And it's those last things, a speed and width of dissemination, that usually get talked up as features of a coming community but which to me are also its most traducing features, allowing narcissism and tastemaking to cloak themselves in generosity, care for a nationless commonweal, etc. I don't like thought to be paired with speed outside the joke, I don't like it to become rigid pronouncement anywhere, and I don't like what happens to people when they think a huge audience is listening (or, just as bad, think it could and should be listening but isn't or isn't yet). Beyond the Internet, the question becomes more about what moves me enough to venture thought, with venture and moves indicating both how seriously I take speaking about poetry and also how timid I can be about doing it. I've come out of the woodwork a few times for Palmer and Ashbery while mostly avoiding weighing in on the work of my contemporaries, either bc they're my friends or bc I don't feel like I have the distance to be useful.

Poetry is the public speech I most want to offer. I guess I worry that surrounding it with other forms too easily becomes intercessory or self-promotional, becomes *only* social rather than public. But I'm happy to register this as a private hygienic fear rather than a public fact to which others have to assent, and I hope to make myself uncomfortable about this opinion over time.


GH: Your last book, Green and Gray, seems to bring the sociopolitical bent of The Guns and Flags Project into a more personal, "you and I" atmosphere. Can you talk about what you’re working on now, and if it engages these same themes, or if it takes off into different terrain?

GGOB: Both of those books offer a brevity of figure (a thinking of the rate of its decay) and a musicality that have to do for me with imagining noninstrumental relations between persons and between persons and things--that's the politics they want from within the politics they have. You're right that Green and Gray's flight from personality doesn't as often preclude First Person or address to the Second, and that the first person is often more difficult to distinguish from my life-situation and the sense experience I record here in Oakland and Berkeley. I wanted to counter the first book's angry pastoral, its deliberate omission of the damaging equipment of the modern, with less possible-worlds-building; instead, more pointing at the already built in all its unfortunateness and the little streaks of the better than that.

The collection I've just finished (a few days ago) is unfamiliarly allocated (3 of its poems comprise 59 of its 87 pages), more liable to a mimesis of casual speech, and much less allergic to proper nouns and explicit reference. I'm so given to abstraction that I might as well not start there and instead see what happens when resolute particulars like street and missile names are hoovered up into the machine of their cohabiting. The book ends in a 40 page prose poem written in an emphatic iambic rhythm that records the falling of verse into prose (the embarrassment of meter) and along the way thinks a bunch of other passages between putative opposites (New York-California, communism-capitalism, workweek-weekend, subject-predicate, etc.). To return to the question of speed I mentioned in relation to netspeak--this poem, called "Metropole," is massive, ponderous, slow, demanding, archaic sound obtruding through contemporary terms--I don't console myself with or even want an ideal, tireless reader who would take it on in a single sitting. It's meant to be returned to, dropped again, maybe even abandoned. I increasingly tend to think of Valery's chestnut "A poem is never finished, only abandoned" as as much about reading as first composition.

GH: Your poems tend to avoid the kind of ending that makes a big sort of fanfare effort to subvert or validate what the poem has been working toward. Instead, they often behave as if the ending is an interpretive choice rather than a necessity; for example, the poem “Several Endless Statements” addresses this outright as it trails off with a repetition that is almost an afterthought: “chagrined would be the word,” as if the speaker’s train of thought could continue if there were more room on the page. What's your view of the last lines of the poem as a space for explicating or contradicting the thus-far-established narrative or mechanics of the poem?

GGOB: As you know, I'm obsessed with formal closure, with what Barbara Herrnstein Smith calls "terminal modification"--that mutation or abdication of the poem's procedures that announces it won't go on forever, the machine is breaking down or up, etc. I'm fascinated by this for many reasons, some of which would be: 1) bc I can't believe people keep doing it, can't believe that pattern break keeps affording pleasure (but it does), 2) bc I'm interested in the moment where the poem has to enjamb on world (both the material world and the fact of the rest of the past and present of language use), where its utterance and work-internal relations must also abut everything else, where the fact of page or screen reacquires solidity and depth, etc. and 3) wait there is no 3.

However, I also like writing against that common method of handling ends (relying on it to happen elsewhere) by thinking instead of a poem's close as a last instance of what it does everywhere else rather than emphasizing finish as a special region in the poem. This petering out or trailing off can then happen even if one doesn't make use of actual repetition--you have merely the last term of a finite series you couldn't apprehend until it went terminal, an endless statement that still stops. But this less fanfaring way of closing is, as I said, reliant on more emphatic closure's happening elsewhere and elsewhen--that expectation of pattern-abdication is so dominant that to instead offer pattern's last instance is still to participate in closure's traditional economy. Lastly, it's only apparently less loud--its quiet is loud, its loudness is its departure from typical loudness, etc. When Keats ends a sonnet "Silent, upon a peak in Darien" he makes the line's (and poem's) final beat, which is usually its loudest, even louder bc of how much effort it requires to raise "en" from silence into prominence.

I think it might be more accurate to say that I used to be very loud in one way at poem's close (in Guns and Flags), as loud as rhyme even, but that I've been getting quieter over the course of subsequent work, or differently prominent, renouncing the end as a place in which to dramatize the establishing of formal demise but unable to elude the audible drama of a certain renunciation.


GH: There's talk that the very dense, developed, language-oriented style of John Ashbery and his contemporaries is giving way to a more imagistic or perhaps surrealist style. How do you feel about the existence of such distinct "schools" of writing and the transitions between them, and the validity of organising one’s poetics in such a way?

GGOB: I hate that kind of belonging and border-policing and I'm entirely suspicious of attempts to identify it (suspicious both of the power to see such formations and of the motives behind efforts to see that way) while loving some of the writing that can come from those who so self-identify.


Gillian Hamel’s
poetry has been published by The Trainwreck Union and in Sorry IV Snake. She has also given editorial assistance for fellow writers, local publishers, and the grammatically impaired. She currently works transcribing interviews and news reports on the misdeeds and shenanigans of America’s financial institutions, and will begin pursuing an MFA in creative writing at St. Mary’s in the fall.

Geoffrey G. O’Brien is the author of Green and Gray (2007) and The Guns and Flags Project (2002), both from The University of California Press, and coauthor (in collaboration with the poet Jeff Clark) of 2A (Quemadura, 2006). He teaches verse writing and literature in the English Department at UC Berkeley and at San Quentin State Prison.

Come check out O'Brien read tonight at 730 at Studio One Arts Center with Mike Young and Film Artist Jake Gillespie.