Archive for the ‘Why We Like It’ Category

Why We Like It: “Olentangy River”

Monday, May 13th, 2013

We’re sad to say goodbye to our hardy, super-duper volunteer Lisa Summe—who just graduated with an MA in creative writing from UC and is headed to Virginia Tech for an MFA in the fall. Our loss is their gain. The office won’t be the same without her brightly colored clothing, strong work ethic, and trenchant remarks on veggie burgers. (Which one tastes like a hockey puck? Which has the best blend of vegetables? How great is corn?)

Before she goes, though, this future Hokie wanted to share one last thought: why she likes Erin Belieu’s poem “Olentangy River,” which appears in Issue 10.1, due out next month.

Lisa Summe: From the start of Erin  Belieu’s “Olentangy River,” one is aware of the striking lack of punctuation. Ultimately, the poem is one long sentence broken up by a series of colons. More interesting than the absence of traditional punctuation, however, is the way Belieu uses spaces to effect separation and emphasis in a way that commas and semicolons cannot. These spaces slow the poem at all the right moments, turning it into a potent pile of little fragments, each one raw and deliberate, each one needing the weight Belieu confers on it.

The form beautifully enhances the poem’s content: the fragments convey the speaker’s desire for and obsession about a past love: ” you’ve never been     imagined    as / I     imagined     you:     today   with a  wife   sleeping / in Ohio   and babies     down the hall.” The self-awareness and vulnerability of this consciousness, together with universal longing and sadness conveyed in the poem’s details, drew me in. The speaker reminisces about nights driving past the former love’s house, nights the speaker calls inevitable because “there   was you   there / somewhere   sleeping   or     toasting bread     or / staring   tired at TV   and   ending lost:   always lost.”  What are our old lovers doing without us? Regular things, perhaps, like making toast. Or not. How does our understanding of how they moved on vary from reality? We will never know.

Putting the Period on Our Reading Period

Friday, April 12th, 2013

Nicola Mason: As they say in the auction world when something is about to go, Fair warning! In this case, our Submission Manger is about to go offline  for the usual issue-filling bits of poetry and prose. If you want to shoot us something for consideration, do it this weekend.  The hammer falls on April 15. Please note, however, that we will open up on June 1 for submissions to our contest, The Robert and Adele Schiff Awards. Important info: You can submit and pay the entry fee online AND ONLY ONLINE.

As we’ve mentioned in blog posts past, our reading period has shifted this year for the first time since the mag was born. Wanna know why? Read our apologetic explanation.

I should emphasize that we actually read year round; there are just fewer of us poring over submissions during the summer. If anything, reading is more fun then because there are fewer interruptions, so I can really get in a groove with it, and also because, without a staff to oversee, I can spend time with your stories and poems on my porch swing, in coffee shops, even (oh glory) at the beach. I happily recall the moment, last July, when I first read D. J. Thielke’s “Frantic Hearts,” upcoming in our May issue. I was in the passenger seat of my mother’s car. She had picked me up from the Raleigh airport, and I was getting a bit of reading in during the three-hour ride to my folks’ house on the NC coast. I picked up a new submission—an actual sheaf of paper, not an electronic submission—and encountered these lines:

The funny thing about the mastectomy was that Laine had already lost a part of her left breast, years earlier, to a brown recluse spider bite. While the right remained resiliently healthy and slightly larger, that treacherous left now housed a small collection of tumors, like bright porcelain trinkets shelved in the vaporous gray mammogram images.

“Some luck,” Dr. Kirzinger said after giving her the news. He didn’t specify whether he thought it good or bad.

She knew it wasn’t funny, but the more he talked, the funnier everything seemed: the flyers he forced on her for all-female gyms and one-sided bras. The name of a tattoo parlor with an artist who specialized in fake nipples. The way he casually reached across his desk and patted her breast, like a small, naughty child they were talking about.

I admire “Frantic Hearts” for myriad reasons: the skillful and affecting way Thielke blends the comic and tragic, her gift for metaphor and telling detail, the care with which she explores the nuances of character, and the way she sneakily turns what one initially thinks of as a cancer story into a searching struggle between older mother and adult daughter. “Frantic Hearts” succeeds in presenting not just a fraught situation, but in revealing a complex consciousness thrust into an uncertainty and granted, finally and through harrowing difficulty, a slant sort of grace.

Why We Like It: “The Secret Boyfriend”

Monday, March 11th, 2013

As you will discover in her appreciation below, editorial assistant Jessica Brown is an intrepid and fearless traveler. She name-drops countries like rappers mention name brands. Argentina? Boom. J. Brown has been there. You want to know about Ghana? Hold those horses. J. Brown can tell you all about it. Based on our extensive Facebook-stalking research, we think it very likely that she’s also been to Ireland, judging by those pictures of emerald-green grassy knolls and moss-covered castles. That’s three continents right there, four if you count North America, her home (J. Brown doesn’t).

Where hasn’t she been? China’s Great Wall? Russia’s dead Lenin? Norway’s famous fjords and the Winter Olympics bobsled infrastructure? You could take a shot, but we wouldn’t. We’re just saying it’s very likely J. Brown has been anywhere you might mention. Very likely. The tragedy in all this is that the one place J. Brown would love to go, she cannot. She is a rabid Harry Potter fan. We mean rabid. And now that J. K. Rowling is writing literary realism, all flights to Hogwarts are canceled. J. Brown has consoled herself by going to the fictional universe of “The Secret Boyfriend,” by Hugh Sheehy, from issue 9.2. , and she makes an insightful traveling companion.

Jessica Brown: Hugh Sheehy’s “The Secret Boyfriend” follows a young woman as she travels through Colombia with her boyfriend Billy, seemingly shadowed by a mysterious man named James. One reason I love this story is that the plot—meeting James, leaving Billy, staying in Colombia—isn’t really the point. Instead, James is an excuse for the narrator to chase after another version of herself, a version “not quite in this world, but close, so much so that I knew the wild taste of her mouth.”

This story resonates so strongly for me because I have felt that same self-dislocation. You think traveling will change you, will make you better. But instead, you get the loneliness of a dim hostel bedroom or an empty bar with plastic tables and a dusty Coke sign on the far wall. You end up waiting on the side of a dusty road for a taxi you’re pretty sure is going to come. Eventually. The narrator’s confusion mirrors moments in my life when I was “tormented by my certainty that outside our room, true excitements went on without me.” I thought of the evening I spent sitting in a hotel room in Formosa, Argentina, watching Dances with Wolves in Spanish on a tiny television chained to the wall. I thought of the day I spent eight hours stranded at a bus station in Accra, Ghana. I thought of the time I chose not to join my friends on a spontaneous trip to France. I was afraid I wouldn’t have time to finish my homework.

The characters in “The Secret Boyfriend” resist easy judgments, just as “motives tend to resist easy names.” I can’t dismiss Billy as just a petulant American tourist; I can’t condemn the narrator for going off with a stranger in Colombia. She thinks of her wild, alternate self, “If I went home, I would never get to know her. I would remember this night, this moment, but the feeling itself would die and, like dead things, stay that way.” So when she is faced with an opportunity to push further, she takes it—for better or worse.

Why We Like It: “She Blinded Me with Molecular Nanotechnology”

Thursday, January 17th, 2013

Of all our volunteers, Lisa Summe has the best collection of pants. She’ll tell you herself: she owns more than twenty pairs. What we haven’t yet shared on the blog is Lisa’s love of opening new batches of submissions. She gets crazy excited when she sees a big stack of envelopes and, when assigned mail duty, has been known to pump her fist and shout “Yessss!” Here are some other Lisa facts we’ve culled:

  • She slings Cincinnati-style chili to hungry customers, and always gives extra oyster crackers.
  • She’s a rabid fan of the San Francisco Giants, so October 2012 was a good month for her.
  • She likes to catch fish and then hold them, looking at them meditatively.
  • She is not Lisa M. Summe, MD, a local internist.

Though we won’t turn to Lisa to treat our gout or sinusitis, we do like to hear her insights about poetry while she sits in the office, tearing through manila mountains. We were recently treated to this off-the-cuff tribute to a poem from Issue 9.2:

Lisa Summe: What strikes me about Amorak Huey’s poem “She Blinded Me with Molecular Nanotechnology” is the way the poet relates the formulaic nature of the science with (arguably) the obvious nature of a failing marriage. What is the difference between science and marriage? Nothing, really. Both are predictable.

Despite the subject matter, Huey makes us laugh while giving us pause to think about the logistics of our own relationships. And, if your relationship is anything like that of the speaker, he’s breaking your heart, too: “We need a special microscope / to talk to each other anymore.” When the honeymoon phase is over, how do you deal with your lack of pleasure? Your boredom? Your realization that science knew the outcome before you did? There should be a formula for this.

Huey’s description, even of what is tiny, along with they way he combines jargon and colloquial rhythms, give this poem its push. Huey keeps it real; marriage doesn’t protect you from anything. It’s the vulnerability of this acknowledgment that is appealing to me.

(Read Huey’s explanation of the poem’s origins here.)

Why We Like It: “Domestic Dirge”

Saturday, December 15th, 2012

One of our intrepid new volunteers, Linwood Rumney, has a great poet’s name, calling up linn (torrent of rushing water), a pastoral forest, a fiery drink, and . . . knees. Okay, that last isn’t exactly poetic, but still, we’re glad to have Linwood and his great name on staff. It’s also good to have his expertise as we plan for the AWP conference in Boston in March: He lived there for ten years and still misses it. In fact, we’ve had to tell him not to bring up Beantown in every single conversation (sometimes a story about a skunk on Hamilton Avenue is just a story about a skunk on Hamilton Avenue, not an invitation to hear about how skunks ran amok in east Boston in 2010).

Many of us came to Cincinnati from other places, though, so we understand the lost-Eden of the hometown. We let him talk to us in a fake Boston brogue, a la Jimmy Fallon’s “Sully” character from Saturday Night Live skits. We pretend to care about the Red Sox and declare our passion for the Grolier Poetry bookshop in Cambridge. We can’t be from Boston, but we can support Linwood in his withdrawal. (We’d like to point out to him, by the way, that Linwood is also the name of a small neighborhood in the eastern Cincinnati area). When he said he loved a Naomi Guttman poem from Issue 9.2 and wanted to share his thoughts with blog-readers, we encouraged him to do so, as long as he performed in front of the staff as a Southie. Though we don’t have audio or video of his oration, we do have this transcript:

Linwood Rumney: It was with a real sense of relief that I came across two new poems from Naomi Guttman, who was my undergraduate creative writing professor at Hamilton College. For me, after four months in the strange new land of Ohio, exiled from my beloved Boston (where I lived for almost a decade), Cincinnati only sometimes feels like home. Thus, to see some new work from Naomi was a great blessing, for two reasons. First, it reminded me of those years in Upstate New York, where I had an equally ambivalent sense of my regional affiliation. Second, it felt as though the cosmos, or at least The Cincinnati Review, was telling me that I am where I belong.

As a teacher of creative writing and poetry, as really my first mentor, Naomi was (and still is, I can guess) enormously patient and generous. I fondly recall the time she took in critiquing my poems. The care she took in urging me forward in my craft, uncovering gems in my poems that I never would have spotted for myself, was of course tremendously beneficial.

That patience and generosity is evident in Naomi’s poetry. It manifests, strangely enough, even in a poem with a title like “Domestic Dirge.” The lines here are bold, swelling to fill the entire page, though the deftly handled and complex alliteration that somehow never becomes overbearing makes it impossible to ever mistake the piece for prose. Given the title, and given that the poem’s most common words are “damn” and “curse,” you might anticipate an egotistical speaker lamenting her household chores. Certainly that speaker is in there, but only sometimes: “Damn dawn-to-dusk digging machine all day but Sunday, laundry day, damn/ laundry in dark drifts.”

Just as often, though, the speaker bemoans the minor suffering of others: “Curse soccer games where Onno sits out three/ quarters.” So, by the last line—“damn/ the Tooth Fairy, who will never visit Stephan’s bed again”—the poem successfully conflates the suffering of others, no matter how trivial, with the speaker’s suffering, pushing us to question the essence of the poem. Is this last line a bit of light humor lamenting Stephan’s loss of an important childhood source of revenue? Or is a mother lamenting that a child is growing up? Or maybe, as “dirge” might imply, something darker and more tragic has been revealed?

So many contemporary poems work hard to be tidy, making everything so accessible that it’s transparent and a bit bland. This subtle and understated gesture toward mystery at the end of “Domestic Dirge,” the poem’s unwillingness to answer these urgent questions, is consequently incredibly satisfying.

“Moxie Returns”: Why We Like It

Thursday, November 8th, 2012

Last time CR Editorial Assistant Sara Watson wrote a blogpost for us, we highlighted her biography, which mirrored—to a remarkable degree—that of a certain Hollywood actor. Since then, we’ve learned that she also writes a mean ekphrastic poem, runs half-marathons, and loves her wiener-dog mix, whom she sometimes dresses in tuxedos. We don’t hold this against her, since many of us also press costumes on our pets. Nicola Mason’s guinea pig has been a fairy princess in her magical pint-sized village, Becky Adnot-Haynes’s dogs impersonated a shark and a dinosaur on Halloween, and Lisa Ampleman’s outdoor comet-tailed goldfish like to pretend they’re Nemo, swimming around in a conspicuously erratic pattern. They have injured-fin jealousy.

And we’re all jealous of Sara’s skills at concision. Why use five words when you can use one, after all? Sara put those talents to use when she wrote this appreciation of Heather June Gibbons’s poem “Moxie Returns,” from our upcoming Issue 9.2 (which you can order here):

Sara Watson: What draws me to Heather June Gibbons’s poem “Moxie Returns” is the bottomless pit of its speaker’s desperation. In other words, I like a self-deprecating joke—particularly when it’s more heartbreaking than it is humorous.

Nothing in this poem can accomplish even the simplest goal: Keys can’t unlock doors, knobs can’t open drawers, the motor isn’t worth the energy required to get it started, and nobody can stay awake while attempting vigilance. Still, Gibbons’s speaker keeps on, propelled by the unfulfilled but still-throbbing desires of the may-as-well-be-dead.

Is there hope in this poem? I’m not sure. Has moxie indeed returned? I don’t think so. But Gibbons’s self-destructive narrator redeems desperation itself, transforming it from what is pitiable into something we might honor: effort—that grasping, even only at straws.

Why We Like It: “The People Who Ignore You Are the People Who Live Here”

Tuesday, October 30th, 2012

Last week, when volunteer Suzanne Wendell strolled into our offices, we complimented her new chin-length bob. “Nice ‘do,” we said. “I did it myself,” she replied. “Huh?” we said, because Suzanne’s hair actually looked pretty good, nothing like the inch-from-the-hairline bangs we cut for ourselves when we were kids. “Yeah,” she replied. “Actually, I moonlight as a stylist to the stars. If you want, I could give you guys a makeover.”  Of course, we put ourselves completely in her capable hands.

Extracurricular hair-cutting aside, Suzanne also participates in a multitude of editorial activities at the CR office, including blogging for our Why We Like It series. Here’s Suzanne’s take on Lauri Anderson Alford’s “The People Who Ignore You Are the People Who Live Here,” from soon-to-be-released issue 9.2:

Suzanne Wendell: There’s something about the voice of Alford’s narrator that immediately attracted me to this story, something subtle and reticent. “The People Who Ignore You Are the People Who Live Here” is set up as a mystery, the mystery of what happened to the narrator’s fiancé, Leo, but there is a smaller mystery on every page. The narrator herself remains something of an enigma throughout her narrative, and in her ambivalence toward her missing lover, the mysteries of their relationship, and perhaps all relationships, are amplified.

Alford intertwines humor and sadness with an almost inadvertent ease. The narrator describes the billboard of Leo’s picture erected during her search for him as “less like a call for help than an advertisement for a cruise ship.” In her deadpan tone she observes, “Alaska, he seemed to be saying, It’s not just for old people.” Her explanation for treating Leo’s disappearance so casually in the beginning, “I thought we were having a fight,” perfectly illuminates what so much of the story is about; the silliness and tragedy and bewilderment of the whole thing.

One of my favorite novels is Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier. I love it because the most important character is dead before the story even starts. Similarly, Leo has almost more presence in the story than the narrator, despite him never appearing outside of flashbacks. Alford’s readers will know him, feel the loss of him, and feel haunted by him. They will understand why his jilted fiancé agonizes over him, but they still may not expect the final chilling sentence of the story.

Why We Like It: Peter Cooley’s “Possible Body”

Friday, October 19th, 2012

Here at the CR, we like our editorial assistants to have extra skills (in addition to perceptive reading acumen, superior letter-opening talents, and a song-and-dance routine), so we were thrilled when Michael C. Peterson joined the staff. As we’ve blogged about before, Michael has welding experience. When we learned that, we asked him to grab his welding helmet and acetylene torch, to fix our conference table, which a volunteer-who-will-not-be-named had karate-chopped in a fit of rage at the lack of stories about laser cats. Michael grabbed his equipment and got started. Though we had to shield our eyes from the brightness of his flame, as he worked we heard him share the following appreciation of Peter Cooley’s poem “Possible Body,” from our upcoming Issue 9.2. (You may notice that the Bowie video he describes features a brief scene with welding and more, starting at 1:38.) After half an hour, he had repaired the unfortunate damage AND enlightened us:

Michael C. Peterson: I’m trying to recall that fantastic/terrible David Bowie video. I think it’s “Let’s Dance.” You know, the one where Bowie is somewhere in the middle of the Australian outback, pretending to play the guitar just as well as the guy who actually played it on the track. Stevie Ray Vaughn, I think. There was all this wind, and Bowie’s trousers were really going nuts. Actually, it may have been Brazil, and there were these weird primitive-looking, shirtless teenage kids who were searching for this big modern city, and Bowie’s chiseled face was sort of palimpsesting over everything.

I might be making this up. I don’t think I am. I feel like I just saw it yesterday, but as if yesterday is right now. Which is how I feel reading Peter Cooley’s exceptional “Possible Body,” a poem that works brilliantly to answer a hypothetical by way of similar extension across time and space. I like Cooley’s piece for its elision, its sliding quality in both sense and sound. “I’m you, that’s why I understand your speech,” the self says. Not so fast. “Beggar come up below the overpass/ To ask me in—Vietnamese?—for cash,” the self says, recalibrating. These slips and recalibrations are the low-humming engine of “Possible Body” and, for me, the loci of its pleasure. Lines click over like synapses firing, the capacitors of the poem’s circuit releasing current; it is a kinetic by which a variety of personal histories might coincide. Cooley’s poem feels timeless not just for its across-time-ness, but because it seeks a transcendent moment of out-of-time-ness in which we might connect with future selves without total irreversible consequence. The effect is near perhaps to what the poet Robert Duncan calls “the psychic depth of time transformed into eternity”—a transport fundamental not just to the work of poetry but to the work of the self.

In any case, the point in all of this is that those kids in that Bowie video (either primitive or futuristic) were looking for a city (either Sydney or Brazilia) so they could dance on that dusty hill against some difficult futurity. It doesn’t matter which city, or what year. It is, rather, that the search is so fundamental. Cooley’s poem reminds us that it must both send us out and bring us home. In doing so, the dance becomes both revolutionary and timeless.

Order Issue 9.2, or any other issue, here.

“Safe Word”: Why We Like It

Wednesday, August 29th, 2012

When we held our annual Feats of Physiques award ceremony just before summer break, volunteer Julia Velasco raked in a slew of medals—a CR version of the Olympic kind, only ours were fashioned out of office supplies and shipping tape. Anyway, Julia walked away with at least a pound of paperclips, staplers, and Media Mail stamps hanging from her neck. Turns out she can wiggle her ears better than anyone in the office. She can remove her own tooth, then stick it back in quick-like without even bleeding too much (Matt McBride did not fare so well in this event. He now talks with a lisp and weeps over all the pretty white smiles in Colgate commercials). She has control over individual eyelashes. She claimed she could do the splits, and because of the creepy eyelash thing, we believed her and simply handed over the medal (which was constructed of thumbtacks and no one else wanted anyway). Moreover, she writes blog posts the way leaves transpire. Which means she’s a natural, as this post on Emma Torzs’s story in our current issue attests.

Julia Velasco: Like all good stories, “Safe Word” is about human nature, telling us something about ourselves that we didn’t know but can easily recognize. When I started reading, my curiosity was caught immediately. This story is a fascinating new view on the sensitive topic of sexual violence against women, but what I found most interesting, what kept me reading, was Emma Torzs’s take on the consequences of this kind of violence for a man, not only in his relationship to victims—his sympathy for them—but the horror he feels in seeing himself as a potential aggressor.

It is ultimately the narrator’s fear of himself—the dread under all the layers of what he wants to be, a certain something escaping his control—that makes this piece so engaging. The story of the victim has been told often and well, but rarely has the story of the predator been presented in such a nuanced way. “Safe Word” invites us to take a look of what a “nice guy” can hide, even from himself.

I like it because it is dark and disturbing, because it made me grimace in captivated disbelief. Because it taught me why I should cross the street when approaching a stranger in the dark, but also how easily that stranger could be me.

“Proof”: Why We Like It

Thursday, May 31st, 2012

Volunteer Suzanne Wendell has a special kind of speaking voice. It is melodious and relaxing, kind of like one of those Sounds of the Ocean CDs minus the crashing waves. We’ve wasted entire afternoons asking her to repeat phrases like “purple mountain majesty” and “oodles of noodles.” Sometimes we even kind of zone out listening to her mellifluous intonations and go to a place of neither sleep nor wakefulness—kind of like when you half-wake-up from your Saturday afternoon nap and pretend not to hear your sig. other saying it’s time to get up, the Szymanskis are coming over and you need to hide the good bourbon and mash the avocados.

When she isn’t slowing our heart rates with her voice-box vibrations, Suzanne helps us open mail, send mail, enter copyedits, organize contributor information, and, of course—review and evaluate manuscripts. Here are her thoughts on Tracy Burkholder’s “Proof,” an essay from our upcoming issue:

Suzanne Wendell: Fiction is what I write, and it seems to be all I ever get anything out of, at least in terms of “honing my craft.” But from the first sentence of Tracy Burkholder’s essay—“Ginger-scented oil slicks my fingers”—I was hooked, and I enjoyed and appreciated the piece as much as I would a short story.

I would like to say that this is because Burkholder’s essay reads like fiction. I felt awe when I read “One of the first stories we’re told is the stroke of our mother’s hand across our newborn skin.” But Burkholder does more than dazzle us with poignant and beautiful prose. She also includes facts from scientific studies, interesting facts, even. Did you know, for instance, that Puerto Ricans touch each other an average of three times per minute?  I’d like to see a fiction writer use such fascinating trivia as successfully and as matter-of -factly.

I think I am most drawn to “Proof” because of Burkholder’s astute observations about something so deceptively complicated: touch. After reading the essay, I realized how big of an issue touch is in my own life. Knowing, for example, when and when not to hug an acquaintance or relative. It’s not that I don’t like hugs. I love hugs. It’s the possibility of offending another person by encroaching on his or her personal space that holds me back. But Burkholder, whether or not she ever intended to, inspired me to go for it every time. So if I ever get slapped, punched, or sued for touching someone inappropriately, remember it’s Tracy Burkholder’s fault and not mine.