Interview with Trace Estes

WG: Trace, about a year ago, you became managing editor of The Alsop Review. From a poet's point of view, what has that been like for you?

TE: I could embellish (a poet's job) and say that becoming the Managing Editor for Alsop Review has been a bed of roses--but nah. Dealing with the technical aspects of the site, as well as for The Gazebo: the poetry workshop arm of AR, can be a headache. I had to teach myself the coding techniques and handling separate platforms for both the boards. Trust me--it's a different language.

But the benefits far outweigh the minor tangles of running the boards. I am exposed to poetry of varying styles every day. I get to follow the progression of comments from a membership as diverse as it is talented. Each opinion is a facet of the poem - another way into the work. And when you bring that mindset into the personal place where you work on your own poetry -desk, kitchen table, couch, toilet - your work reaps the rewards. I've always told my poet friends that if you're stuck and you can't get the motor running - critique four poems on the site you frequent. By the time you finish that, I defy you to tell me the juices aren't flowing.

WG: I like your advice about critiquing four poem and want to continue along that line for a minute. What are you looking for in the poems that come to AR? Conversely, what sort of things to you see in poems that you would ask writers interested in submitting to stay away from?

TE: The answers for these questions are complex, but bear with me.

One of my jobs with Alsop's is to find poets that I believe are breaking ground in this art form we have all chosen. I try to add at least two every year to the rolls of "The Poets." The link for these special people is at: http://www.journal.alsopreview.com.

I also get to help nominate and publish poems that have reached the summit of excellence. These are poems that have appeared at our workshop - The Gazebo. The Staff/moderators spot poems we believe to be _______. See, we could put in words like: perfect, an earthquake for the eyes, pleasing to the palette, sapid. I've heard all of these phrases, but basically, it is a poem that shakes you up and needs no revision. These poems go in AR's "Noted on the Gazebo." http://www.journal.alsopreview.com/?p=1389

So, until we start publishing our quarterly "Octavo" again, no poems come into the Review. But as to what I look for - poetry that surprises me. Metrical verse so smooth you aren't even aware that the poem has end rhymes until you're on your second reading. Sonnets that sing. Free verse that isn't an e.e.cummings rip off, or broken after one or two words to give them "poetic importance." Poetry that uses form, line breaks and stanza breaks to its advantage because the subject matter dictates it, not dribble down the page so it resembles a text message. And lastly, poetry with themes or images that are from around the corner. Remember, there is NO subject matter that is forbidden in poetry.

What would I say writers should stay away from? Kill the pretentious lower case/no punctuation shit. It screams "look at me --I'm poetry." No publisher worth his weight in Emily Dickinson books takes this stuff seriously and neither will a discriminating reader. The word "shard" should be taken out behind the shed and have someone put a cap in its ass, along with cliches and inversions. Yes, the Masters used them. But look at the calendar, folks. The people still writing this way have an audience of one -- themselves. Oh yeah, there is that other guy in the darkest recesses of the library shelves. Him, too.

If I could list one thing that I think writers should avoid -- seriousness. Don't be offended if you get rejection slips on a poem you know is great. Don't get twisted up by a critique that points out flaws or just pans your poem. Don't write a 4000 word treatise defending one of your 28 word poems. By all means, write about serious subjects, but have fun doing it. Because creation is supposed to be fun -- whether your writing a masterpiece, having hot, wet and wild monkey-ooh-wa-doo, or deciding what trees would look right over there on the planet you're breathing life into.

But all this is opinion and easily ignored. If you have the talent to turn a cliche on its head, by all means, rock on. And I'll be there cheering you on.

WG: As you suggested your answer spiders in a number of different directions, but I think on a concrete level, it is very helpful to know that there are certain practices like lower case/no punctuation and the word shard that are going to be immediate cause for rejection from Alsop Review - and I would suspect for many other poetry journals as well. Similarly, at Wordgathering, any poet who describes their work as "inspirational" in a cover letter has pretty much signed their own rejection notice. These things are pretty straight forward. On the other hand, it seems to me that avoiding seriousness is going to be a much more difficult. Will you illustrate with one of your own poems, how a writer tackles this problem on a serious subject and also applies some of the principles of forms that you have discussed in terms of line and stanza beaks and punctuation?

TE: I could use any number of samples from my vast storehouse of poems - (tongue firmly pressed to cheek).

A serious subject where I use humor and form? Hmmm... I am reluctant to explicate poems I have written, but for this interview's purposes, I'll relent. This poem has had a few bites, but so far, not published. I was told I have a signature with a lot of my family poetry: I have a point of conflict left offstage - hinted at - never expressed.

The title will work to clue to the reader what might be coming soon to this family. "Absentee List" serves a dual meaning for me. it will allow the N to express what she will be missing about the husband when he is gone. It also hints at a "missing person" which is the true purpose of an absentee list. That image should tickle the "Grim Reaper" alarm bells. And how many of us haven't played this macabre question/answer game?

I eschew punctuation for white space, because as anyone who is involved in a relationship can tell you, couples don't communicate in whole sentences. We finish each other's thoughts -- so would we really need periods, commas and semi-colons?

I use italics to relate real speech. Reason --eh, 'cause I usually do. I hate quotation marks in a poem. I think they belong in prose, unless there is a superior reason to use them.

I use form by breaking each thought/characteristic that N will miss into Stanzas and indent them so they might imply "inner thoughts" and because I think each image deserves that type of separation.

I use the line breaks I do to add to the meaning given to the line. These I don't explain -- it is just something personal to my ear. I believe if you asked 100 people to take this poem's text, there would be 100 versions with different line breaks.

And though I abandon most of what is considered sentence structure, I still use capitalization where it is warranted -- just not at the beginning of the sentence. Again, at 3 AM, who begins their sentences at the start with their Significant Other?

Lastly, humor in the face of a serious issue. Nothing more serious than impending death, right? But the title, the mattress as DMZ, the UN-like pun that can be played a few ways, her original answer, her closing his gaping mouth, the "King Kong" and finally the "dummy" -- would you consider them funny? I did when I wrote them.

The Absentee List

my husband always very UN-like
in matters of disagreement
is the first to roll up on his side
ask my profile why the anger
over a question of one thing I'll miss most
when he is gone

the bedside clock's red numbers
provide enough glow to find his eyes
when I turn and answer
not one thing
into the shocked silence
I reach a hand
caress a cheek
close his mouth
I won't miss

the King Kong
who threw me over his shoulder
climbed a lake house roof
just to bring us closer to the stars

the stubborn jackass
that never admitted
he was wrong to marry me
even when he caught me straying

the romantic
who remembers the dress
I wore on our first date

the apologist
> more afraid of how
his news would effect the kids and me
than the pain he'd soon be suffering

I won't miss one you dummy
I'll miss them all

WG: So when you say "you eschew punctuation for white space", it sounds as though in beginning a poem, you sort of clear the board of rules and build the poem from scratch, is that right? I'm asking because a short while ago you advised the writer to "kill the pretentious, lower/no case punctuation," which might have lead a new poet to believe that you advocated following traditional punctuation/capitalization in your poems, yet I think that at the same time that same new writer might have thought that in "The Absentee List" you were taking the e.e. cummings approach.

TE: The reason I chose that poem as an illustration was to thumb my nose at the "editor me" who doesn't like the pretensions. Honestly, I wasn't trying on the e.e. cummings coat -- it was something that fit the poem's frame of mind. What I was referring to earlier are the poets that think "Oh, this is the way I have to do ALL my poetry." I've heard a poet argue that the lower case "i" in their poems was because they (the writer) didn't deserve the importance of a capital -- afraid their ego might expand. That is just plain BS. Sorry. I've seen Bukowski clones that insist their navel-gazing is worthwhile poetry. Uh-uh. But as far as breaking the rules are concerned -- you're talking to a hardened junkie of the coined word and verbing of nouns. Hee Hee. As a writer, I think you should break the rules when ever you see fit. If you can pull it off, you will own a piece of the electricity.

WG: In another context, you have comment that you are "forced daily to write by a pissed-off demon with a trident." Will you elaborate on this?

TE: Do I build a poem from scratch? Yes, but it is my compulsion to write every day. Sometimes, the only thing to come from it is a pile of crumpled notes littering the areas around the trash can. (Basketball ain't my strong suit)

But some days -- there is that golden Ah hah! moment and an image is born. Those images might sit on the desk for months, but there are some jotted notes that vibrate in my head and DEMAND attention. I've been writing for four decades now -- I don't ignore the signs.

WG: Your comments about the creative process reminds me of Milosz's phrase, "That's why poetry is rightly said to be dictated by a daimonion". Speaking of the dark side of things, as you know, one of the missions of Wordgathering is to try to counteract stereotypic images of disability. Do you think that poetry works against these stereotypes? Can you give any examples?

TE: Do I think poetry works against those stereotypes. Emphatically--Yes.

I think writing of all types fight stereotypes--it is in its nature to do so. Why do we write? Creation of thought is the only answer I can come up with. To bring a point to a reader's attention and make them think about it.

Do we care if the writer who has made us see things in a new light is disabled, of color, of a different sexual persuasion? I believe in my heart that a reader who would let those factors filter the way they think are close-minded anyway and probably incapable of appreciating TRUE art.

Examples:
1) Jim Ferris, and the work he has done to hammer away at the term "crip poetry." I think people are taking notice that even if we are labeled "niche" poetry, we are still poets first and just folks who happen to have a disability. The term "self-definition" was something I learned about first hand. If you refuse to wear a label someone else is thrusting upon you, you are winning the game.

2) And while it might appear as sucking up--Wordgathering and Inglis House. The Poetry Contest and anthologies allow a world at large to read poetry of worth. For that work alone they deserve praise. But that they are also letting a world SEE the poets of worth--that is immeasurable.

WG: How about your own work? How do you think it counteracts stereotypes of disability?

TE: In many of my poems, one of the characters -- or the narrator -- have a disability that just happens to be part of who they are.

WG: Question #7B (wrong number) -(approximate) So are you saying that you don't feel any need in your poetry to explore issues of disability?

TE: "Explore" is a loaded word. Do I explore the issue of disability? Yes. But I do so in a way that does not make it the central point of my characters. Ex: N1 happens to be a man who has fibromyalgia. Does it effect the way he thinks and acts? Yes, but it doesn't define him as a person., Character Y has to use canes to walk. But, he doesn't see himself as "a man with canes" first--he sees himself as a man.

WG: How would you say that you have grown as a poet? How is your poetry different than it was when you were younger>

TE: How have I changed? I no longer write doggerel and mistake it for poetry. I use image-driven poetry to make connections with my readers, even if they are unaware the connection has been made. What has changed? I don't believe my angst is material that will make a poem solo. But, I do try to weave that angst into my work, hopefully reaching a potential reader with an "universal truth." 'Cause everyone has heartache, joy, pride, anger.

I write "small" now. Trying to attack large subjects (war, politics, religion) and cramming all of it into one poem is a recipe for disaster. Yeah, they're fair game, but pick one subject and approach it sideways.

WG: Speaking of loaded terms, how do you know if something is "doggerel"? Do you ever look at something you've written recently and think - that's doggerel? What tips you off?

TE: The sing-songy effect and when I look at the end rhymes, they feel forced.

WG: Are there any particular poets that you would advise beginning writers to read? Have their been any that you feel have had a real impact upon your writing? In what way?

Most people when confronted with this question are going to answer in predictable ways, so let's break the mold here, shall we? Mitchell Gellar and the late Margaret Griffiths are formalists that never fail to catch my eye. They have the ability to make you forget you're reading a sonnet -- the end rhymes are natural and flawless. Brent Fisk, because without a doubt, he is a world-class imagists. Terese Coe, Rachel Dacus, Christine Potter: all have the talent to make the "everyday" a thing of joy to discover. And finally, KR Copeland, who writes with witty and intelligent wordplay that always seems to have an edge of darkness to it.

Influences: Billy the Shakes, Blake, Whitman, Auden, Poe.

Real impact on the way I write: Kooser springs to mind. But everyone above in the reading list impact the way I write on a daily basis. I don't think you can read other poet's work and not be influenced by the things you recognize are working in theirs.

WG:Being both an editor and a writer yourself, you have the advantage of being able to look at writing from a couple of different perspectives, so I really appreciate the time you've taken to share your thoughts with our readers. Before closing is there anything else you would like to add that you think we may have overlooked?

I don't think anything has been "overlooked," but I'll probably think of a thousand things to add when this goes online. "Words of wisdom" sounds so egotistical when you say the phrase out loud or write it down, but here we go:

Read. Read everyday. Find a good workshop (whether online or in person). Read. Try to critique on poem a day. Read. Try to set an hour aside each day to create and be religious about it. Read. Try to make a habit of delaying ANY revision by at least four weeks. As I mentioned in an answer above -- have fun doing what you're doing. Grow a thick skin about rejections and negative critique. Never trust anyone who can't find at least one thing wrong about any given poem you write. Read.