Rising, Farrah Field. Four Way Books. 72 pp, $15.95.
“In a poem,” wrote Laurie Sheck, “it is not enough to tell the hidden story. The question is also how to look at the subterfuge, the cover, how power functions to block out what it can’t absorb, what would undermine it.” She maintains that language, usurped by insidious forces, must be interrogated, broken down, and re-educated before we can trust its allegiance to Us, not Them. Ann Lauterbach seems to concur when she says, “Poetry is the aversion to the assertion of power. Poetry is that which resists dominance.”
Poetry has always hijacked the language for its own ends. Yet it also wields power, or rather, it gives voice to strengths that would displace power or at least nudge it off its game. “The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting,” wrote Milan Kundera. Memory kindly reminds us what we actually are, and that is because we forget, just like the power-purveyors. Sometimes memory so successfully reminds a poet how fragmented she is that her subject becomes the inefficacy of her attempts to capture the essence of her grief (or anything else). She tries and tries. What is the “power” that disables her ability to find peace after tragic experience? Or is she just creating theater, exerting power over a passive audience?
This brings us to Farrah Field’s debut, Rising. One of the most curious things about the collection is a mid-book poem called “In Opelousas.” Field generally prefers abrupt segues, wrenched syntax, and shredded context, but in this poem she unexpectedly devises a longer, prosaic line and a relatively straightforward narrative. The poem begins:
I wore a picture of my sister throwing bread to ducks at the candlelight
memorial for victims of domestic violence. Only so much is let out
of a face and I read in folk Someone killed your someone too.
The voice here is about as even-tempered as it gets in Rising. The recollections appear as congealed, whole impressions: “A year ago, Mama admitted that he once pushed my sister out of his truck / on the highway.” The final lines: “After kissing her casket goodbye, // I cried so hard I forgot who I was. Someone touched my arm. What’s an arm.”
Field works her way to this rendition of her sister’s death via poems that are more jittery and fragmented, such as “The Telling”:
A young boy was on TV, explaining
how he found my sister’s body,I sometimes begin. Eyes redden.
The newspaper’s words: “Heather Field,”“husband” and “murder-suicide.”
The telling has its own rhythm.First she was beaten,
then struck with a hatchet.Then casket, cakes from neighbors.
Her daughter was in the next room.I never say the mother-in-law
cooks in that same kitchen,never say there was no garage door;
he lifted her into his truck in daylight.Murders happen all the time.
I really lost it walking from her new graveto the car. Then the subject changes.
Someone tells me I’m so strong.
The shock of memory is embodied in the rattled obliquity of the remarks, a fashion connoting originality as well as emotional authenticity. Such a stylist makes (or at least strongly implies) two not quite conjoining statements about her own language. First: I have found a language appropriate to the terrible thing I want to speak about. Second: This telling “has its own rhythm,” and I’m not entirely in control. But there is a third statement, obscured by the foreground of the other two: I have the power now, I have survived this world, and I have the microphone. In “The Telling,” “Someone tells me I’m so strong” (meaning the “I” in the poem feels unstable). But the “I” who speaks is someone made complex and ambitious by the experiences she relates.
This is the kind of poetry that falters when trading too insistently on emotional damage, a broken thing too brightly or ominously lit, its shards too gaudy or ghostly. For the work to succeed, the breakage may be final but not its significance. Somehow the poem must live as a whole thing, overcoming its own circumstances. Field is fearless in this sense, refusing to understate the profound source of agitation, allowing a certain raggedness in her diction to reach the border of affectation, a speech constantly a step behind its object. The telling in “The Telling” never says what it would.
Rising is superb in its design and pacing, especially in the progression toward “In Opelousas” at the midpoint. Its materials are various, sorting out memories of childhood, family, transience and locales, life in the country, adolescent and adult sex, and the immutable fact of the murder of Heather Field. The persona in charge of integrating everything is both haunted and haunting. In “Vixen,” both aspects swirl together; the one speaking wields the vixen’s intuitive power, the “you” she addresses is a candidate for vixenhood:
He whispers your name and it is louder
than your maneuver of dressing, louder
than the door’s inchcry. Fey vacillation:
chin tucked in the cowl of your sweater,
he won’t take what you won’t give, tamed
distance and the work of it, nimble or not.
Field’s speakers live in the furious aftermath of knowledge, having recognized their similarity to the world they live in. But they are still antagonistic to it, angry with it. In “The Disturbed Mississippi,” the river is a “Bible-leather Vesuvius . . . weird and monstrous, heart / and damned.” The river teaches “We suffer / violent learning that terrible things are great things.” The landscape signifies a brooding, implacable, and sometimes ruthless force that impregnates everything and everyone. In “Louisiana Phone Call,” Field writes, “If my sister hadn’t been killed, / I’d tell you about my new man, // where I met him and his humming,” concluding with “Everyone who can think has a weapon.”
Rising is fixated on the difficulty of using language to generate meaning when this other, indistinct, merciless power (suddenly quite distinct when raising a hatchet to kill) invalidates the conventional ways of explaining things. Field’s efforts are a word-at-a-time reconstruction of a self. “There is wisdom I crave to own, / but I heard you crying on the couch,” she writes in “Heart-Certain.” But simple communication merely distracts: “Mississippi clouds crouch low / for interrogation: Tuesday meat loaf // and where did you put the wooden spoon? / Strength is nothing but coloring my dark.” Again, we hear the disparity between the poem’s “I” and the speaker, weakness and latent strength, powerlessness and influence.
Stark scene, homespun detail, bits of dialogue, the pared-down wisdom in local sense and private reckoning: these are the elements of many of Field’s poems. The first half of “Porch Music,” below, Field’s slouch into odd phrasing stiffens up and the details ably carry the weight:
A train came through once.
A wheelbarrow rusts. You driveto Lafayette to watch drunk men
chase a chicken and this is not odd.The mold on your house warms
the porch music of mosquitoesand neighbors’ nods. This is what it is,
wisteria’s clench and crack: you havethree shirts and a chapped mouth.
In “Febricity” (does she mean “febrility?”), Field writes, “Some beings force others / into poor adventures.” The poem’s scenario is obscure. A female (“Miss Hot”) and a male (“He’s like a bruise to press, // not quite black or blue, / just the soft part of a banana / or Texas”) enter a room. Some “poor adventure” is about to transpire between them. Which of the two is doing the coercing? Perhaps both. Field is usually successful in elevating fragments of cryptic observation into monuments of malfeasance, but sometimes a sliver is just a sliver.
Farrah Field is a poet with compressed, coiled powers that could very easily manipulate us into “poor adventures.” Instead, she manipulates us into a fitfully imagined, shrewdly arranged, fiercely spoken, startling world of desire and ruination. Rising recruits its readers to wreak vengeance on what would block our humanity by unblocking the language we use to describe what actually happens.
Ron Slate’s second book of poems, The Great Wave, was published this spring by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. He maintains a book review called “On the Seawall” and a homepage at ronslate.com.
The latest posts at the blog of The Quarterly Conversation
I’ve been thinking a lot about heat waves. The thick summer weather has felt like a wall of fire that must be bravely pushed through to order to exit from an air conditioned office building and make my way to the corner to board a bus crowded with sweaty citizens. So perhaps it’s no surprise that [...]
"What’s not so up for dispute is that Markson accomplished what, by all rights, should be a literary impossibility." (Colin Marshall for The Millions)
"Ich liebe dich. No sentence pronounced by a judge could be more threatening. It means that you are about to receive a gift you may not want." Via Dylan Suher, Greg Gerke's sort-of review of William H. Gass's Reading Rilke in BIG OTHER.
A fan of Herman Melville must have patience. He must appreciate digression and the dissolution of pattern or plan. He must enjoy the sheer rush of words, a proper Biblical torrent of them. And he must be able to find pleasure in philosophical dialogue as much as in wild anecdote. But must he read Clarel? Can [...]
This is just one small example.
Thomas Bernhard is certainly one of the major, titanic writers of any era, any country. Enormously influential, unremittingly bleak and pessimistic but never without a sense of humor, his style evolved into single-paragraphed philosophical rants extending hundreds of pages, the best of which are Woodcutters, ‘Walking’ (from Three Novellas), and Gathering Evidence. I have finally [...]
Ever since Penguin's 75th Anniversary roadtrip I have intended to address the somewhat simultaneous release of Penguin 75, a sort of vanity book of Penguin covers. This book is delightful, but flawed. Delightful, but misleading.
In The Unicorn Hunt (1993), the fifth book of Dorothy Dunnett’s cycle of historical novels of early Renaissance Europe, the House of Niccolo, Dunnett tells of the deficiencies of wealthy merchant Anselm Adorne’s relations with women thus: His wife Margriet could have warned him. He was familiar with motherly wives and the skittish ways of other [...]
Janet Holmes, director of Ahsahta Press, based at Boise State University in Idaho, took the time this week to share her thoughts on poetry publishing as part of my ongoing series of publisher profiles. Ahsahta publishes seven full-length collections of poetry a year, including recent works by Kate Greenstreet, Lisa Fishman, Rusty Morrison, and Julie Carr. Like some other small presses, Ahsahta offers a yearly subscription option, which is one of my favorite ways to buy poetry and encounter the work of many poets who are new to me, as well as poets whose newest books I always look forward to reading. Janet says more about this and what it's like to craft a press's identity and consistent aesthetic.
An unfortunate side effect to the lengthy transition of print to digital is our long suffering endurance of stale articles in mainstream media rehashing the same points as every other article in mainstream media.
The latest articles published in between issues
In Ransom, Malouf satisfyingly gives us a meeting between Priam and Achilles that builds from the interiority of Priam. The novel seems to want to teach the importance of doing something human to those who might never get around to picking up Homer or who, if they do, might wish they could get into the character's heads.
Winterson has always told and retold the same fictions: of parents and children; of origins, and adoptions; of differences, of margins; of love; of passion; she has always manipulated rhythm and language as an excavation of sources. Much of her fiction mirrors what we know of Winterson's own story, but she agitates against the idea that her work has to be considered as fiction or autobiography, laying claim to both. In Art Objects she writes: "The question put to the writer 'How much of this is based on your own experience?' is meaningless. All or nothing may be the answer. The fiction, the poem, is not a version of the facts, it is an entirely different way of seeing"; a "separate reality." At every turn she eludes the critic, the interviewer, the reader; she offers truth, but not the truth. "I'm telling you stories. Trust me."
It's difficult to pin down exactly why books as objects mean so much to me. I wasn't alive when William Goyen's excellent Come, The Restorer was published, but owning an original printing with the dust jacket—as it would have been purchased at the time of its release—makes the book more special to me than some beat-up paperback reissue. If it's signed, even more so. I'm only really interested in modern first editions (say, post-1950 or so)—before that books get quite expensive, but also I don't think they look as nice, since many were issued without dust jackets, and at that time the dust jacket wasn't considered a permanent part of the book, so they're often missing. So why the obsession and collecting, and why is it so important?
Wood can be harsh, yes, but he is seldom unfair. Wyatt Mason was wrong to accuse him of having suggested, by dint of a string of negative reviews, that no good contemporary literature exists. (He has written favorably of McEwan, Bolaño, Robinson, Ozick, Kirsch, Sebald, Roth, Saramago, Swift, Carey.) He never simply dismisses a writer (in the manor of, say, Dale Peck); on the contrary, his criticism, even at its most polemical and uncompromising, is inexplicably bound to larger concerns about the direction of contemporary fiction. Two major concerns have dominated James Wood's writing: realism and religion. In The Broken Estate: Essays on Literature and Belief, his first collection, newly available in paperback from Picador, these two concerns are beautifully imbricated, resulting in what is surely among the finest achievements in recent literary journalism.
To say that Mark McMorris's Entrepôt is about writing poetry is to do a huge disservice to this beautiful and penetrating book, whose ostensible subject of contemplation is how to live, love, and make do in a time of war, if not cultural crisis. On the other hand, the book's greatest service, at least to my eye, is in its exploration of just what it means to be a poet—I should be more specific and say a lyric poet—amid our contemporary terrors.