Benefits of competition

Recently, one of my poems was long-listed for the CBC Poetry Prize. (For those of you not from Canada, CBC is like BBC, only Canadian, and with fewer good shows. Or like PBS, but with ads instead of pleas for donations.) It was one of 33 poems selected from more than 2,400 submissions, which I think is a pretty cool accomplishment. I didn’t get shortlisted, but looking at the competition, I didn’t feel slighted. There were some fine poets in that group.

Not least among them – in fact, the opposite of least – was Alessandra Naccarato, the eventual winner, as announced today. I commend her and her poem to your attention.

2017 CBC Poetry Prize Winner

The best part of being part of the competition – and the longlist – is that it has provided me with some additional motivation to write more. And so I will. And you’ll see that in the coming weeks and months.

My thanks to CBC Books for the experience.

The truth about Shakespeare

I read recently that the grandson of Evelyn Waugh has claimed to have proof that Shakespeare – or rather, the author of the works commonly attributed some guy by that name – was actually Edward de Vere, better known to historians as the 17th Earl of Oxford. This isn’t a new idea. It was famously propagated by J. Thomas Looney, a 19th century Oxford scholar, and is often referred to as The Looney Theory (or sometimes just The Loony Theory).

I haven’t read Waugh’s argument, but I can say with certainty that he’s wrong, whether or not he’s loony. And I can say this because I know who Shakespeare really was. He was, in fact, Queen Elizabeth (the first one, not the one who didn’t like Diana). Or rather, he was the person masquerading as Elizabeth. That person, as I’ll explain, was Christopher Columbus.

Now, some will say, “Hold on, that can’t be true. Columbus died in 1506. Elizabeth wasn’t born until 1533, and Shakespeare wasn’t born until 1564. Also, he kept writing after Elizabeth died in 1603.” They will say that, but they will be wrong. Or mostly wrong. Let me explain.

On Columbus’s second visit to the so-called “New World” (which was actually just as old as the Old World, just not as ruined), Columbus discovered what most of us know as “the fountain of youth.” As we all know, subsequent “explorers” (a nice word for “invaders”) searched high and low for said fountain (mostly low, although some may have been high from the mushrooms they mistakenly put in their salad). Most famous among them was Ponce de Leon, who went on a wild goose chase in Florida.

Columbus never told anyone about his discovery. Why would he? The Spanish hadn’t exactly treated him all that well, even throwing him in prison at one point. Eventually, he decided he needed a change of scenery, so he made his way to England, several barrels of water from the fountain of youth in tow.

The more of it he drank, the younger he became. His exploring days behind him, he began to work in theatre, mainly playing female roles. One of the side effects of the fountain water was that it suppressed the growth of facial hair, and in fact caused male-pattern baldness, from which he’d never suffered previously. With the right wigs, makeup and costumes he was able to portray young heroines, queens, goddesses – really any female role. He moved from theatre company to theatre company, most of them touring the English countryside.

In the fullness of time, as it were, and to make a long story short, he eventually became friends with a young woman whom fate seemed to have doomed to a life of intrigue. Her mother had, for a time, been married to Henry VIII, and she was in line to become Queen of England when her sickly younger brother died. She didn’t want this life. She wanted something simpler.

Christopher sympathized. He had once wanted that himself. But he was tired of the life of a touring actor, which had very few comforts, even by the standards of a world explorer. Together they hatched a plan. Since he was already used to portraying women, and had a great deal of experience dealing with royalty, he would assume her identity, and she would would become lady of a small country estate.

If you are not convinced, consider this: Elizabeth never married; she hated Spain; she encouraged exploration of the New World; she loved the theatre.

And it was this last point that brought him/her to conceive that a triple life would be more fulfilling than a double life. However, the life of a queen doesn’t really allow one to disappear for weeks on end to perform on the stage. And portraying a queen everyday was all the acting Christopher/Elizabeth could manage. Christopher had often thought he should be better known for his writing, and so he set about learning to write plays, studying surreptitiously with Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Kyd.

He began to write sonnets, as well as plays; and his style of sonnet has since been dubbed ‘Elizabethan’. His early plays were terrible, and never saw the light of day – or footlights, either – but eventually his craft improved enough to be performed. Some of his early efforts have not survived, but most have. He befriended a local actor, who became the front man for his endeavours.

Interestingly, for a supposed Englishman, many of his plays are set in Italy, owing to Columbus’s Italian heritage. Romeo and Juliet, Othello, The Merchant of Venice, Cymbeline, to name a few.

Eventually Christopher tired of playing royalty. He’d already destroyed the Spanish Armada (a final F*** you to Spain), and he’d used up nearly all of his fountain water. So he once again faked his death – or rather Elizabeth’s death, while continuing to write as Shakespeare. He died for real shortly after writing The Tempest (which is why the plays written after that really don’t measure up). The man actually named Shakespeare “gave up writing” shortly afterward, retiring to Stratford, where he eventually died himself, and is still buried to this day.

So, there you have it. At least as convincing as the nonsense that Waugh and other Looneys have propagated, if I do say so myself.

Suite

for Adele

“Nunc scio quid sit amor” – Virgil

1.

strange how my memory
moves my hand moves
my pen on the paper and there
we are, caught in the lens
of a moment

focus:
walking beside the river
talking, trying to curl our tongues
around things we are afraid
to speak
until

(I know your type)
one slip, and the words
come spiralling down
caught in the momentum
of a vortex, and even fear
cannot stop their gradual descent
into the heart
of the matter
where

(I feel that way, too)
we two stand at the centre
of it all, words and the world
whirling around us, hardly
noticing how my hand moves
to hold you, or my memory
this moment

2.

Although it is winter, and the skeletons
in the front yard have dusted themselves
with snow, and the streetlights’ insomnia
is reflected all down the block
in the mostly black ice, and my shadow
has grown longer than the sun is up,

although my feet sink softly, and each
impression I make defiles
the near-perfect amnesia of the landscape,

and although my body, for the most
part, has ceased to feel
exactly how cold the world
has become,

I am peculiarly warm
tonight with the anticipation of your
body, and my every step bursts
with our wild green love.

3.

Wherever, now, I imagine your face
There is music. The “Moonlight” sonata,
“Round Midnight,” follow your image from place
To place like light, surround you like an aura
Or the halo in some renaissance painting
Of a saint.

Like now, as I imagine
You standing at the window and facing
Out into the such blue green afternoon,
Light bending around you, it is Cockburn’s
“Love Song” I hear, and thrushes swift the chords.

(Although it is night, and the full moon turns,
Without a rattle, to the deep reed horns
Of geese landing.)

And just there — Listen … See?
— Wrapped in moonlight is you, imagining me.

4.

my heart leaps awake
as now suddenly dancing
your eyes catch the light

you smile, ask me, “what?”
“nothing,” i say; and then, “now
i know what love is.”

thinking, this is what
poetry was always for:
choreography

of the heart’s dance,
words for translating “nothing,”
a sudden echo, light.

 

© Mark Milner

Lit. Crit.

Having divided into camps,
And the camps having formed alliances,
We went to cacophonous war.
On the one side
Postmodernfeministethnopoeticists,
Nondeconstructingneomodernformalists
On the other.  Each of us fuelled by pride
To remember always the dogma
And the enemy.

Caught out in no-man’s-land,
The poet, sprawling beneath the barbed wire,
Desperate to evade the crossfire
And defiant of every high command,
Refused to write to please
General Jacques or poor old I.A.
Beneath the moon, on hands and knees,
He scratched out his art whichever way
The impulse seemed to demand.
And ignorant of proprieties,
Or perhaps aware, he would compose
Sometimes a villanelle, sometimes intense prose,
Sometimes with rhyme and sometimes not.

But when morning came, and neither side had won,
We found the poet’s bones had been licked clean
By the dogmas of war, his poems nailed to trees.
And each of us seeing what we had done,
The fruits of our follies being quite plain,
In penance, we printed and praised the poet
In anthologies.  Then began fighting again.

© Mark Milner

The Crossing, DTES

an unrhymed anglosaxon sonnet (homage to Earle Birney)

Dawn downtown. Doorway dormants
bundled in blankets, begin to stir.
Stale piss-stench of streets, alleys reeking refuse,
punctuated by breadsmell from bakeries.

Clatter of trolleybuses, with clinging antennae,
as they creepcrawl westward, away
from this hell. Outside the library
the crowd starts queueing, claiming this corner,

domain of the damned. I feel like Dante
walking to work. But going unguided
among these Dis dwellers, dare not descend.

I turn the corner, prepared to pay
the ferryman’s fee, to forego fame,
and postpone Paradise this Monday morning.

© Mark Milner, Vancouver

The Map Of Love

I sat down to chart a map of love, but every place I looked
bore your name. Continents and mountains, streams and oceans,
deserts and forests all spoke only of you. The climate comprised
your moods – the occasional storm or sullen socked in fog
making the sunny days all that much brighter in relief.

I began to trace the coastlines, filled with natural harbours
where I had taken shelter, drawing out a calligraphy
that only you and I would ever read.

Over the years, the map has filled in with detail what was once unknown territory.
But look there – and there – you see? There is still so much left to explore,
to discover, so many places I will be happy to lose myself, as we find our way together.

© Mark Milner

Burnaby, 2015

You Want This Poem

You want this poem to be serious
And hold the correct opinions,
To flatten itself onto a placard
You can display at a protest march,
Affirming what you affirm, condemning
Whatever offends your sensibilities.
It offends your sensibilities to find the poem
In a night-club, sipping its third martini,
Getting excited by breasts
And laughing at off-colour jokes.

You want this poem to be holy,
A sacramental chant for the high holidays,
The kind of poem that goes by itself into the forest
Or the desert, and sits on a rock with its legs crossed,
Desiring neither to move nor to be moved.
It bothers you to come across the poem
On an ordinary weekday,
Wearing an old pair of jeans
And a thinning t-shirt,
Stealing the flowers from a public garden.

You want this poem to be better than it is,
To speak only the finest words
And think only the finest thoughts.
It’s just as well that you didn’t hear the poem
Saying ‘fuck’ in front of your children
As it watched your wife
Making up the bed in the spare room.
It would only have made you angrier
Than you already are, and destroyed whatever
Illusions you might still harbour about this poem.

© Mark Milner, Vancouver

 

Impression on a winter morning

 

The morning light reclines
Confident in its own beauty
As the body of a young woman
Dreaming on a chaise
Indifferent to the artist’s gaze
And the sighing
Of charcoal over paper
Shading into a pretense 
Of permanence
His fleeting desire

 Soft slope of shoulder
Curve of spine and hip

And now rising
Shrugs off a dream
Of shadows and
Wrapping itself in a white sheet
Turns without a glance
To leave the room

6 March 2017
Vancouver

Poetry & meaning

In his poem, ‘Ars Poetica’, Archibald MacLeish famously stated that a poem should not mean, but be. Of course, he also said it should be wordless as the flight of birds, so it’s likely best not to take him too literally.

Several months ago, a good friend of mine challenged me to explain why I like poetry, something he says he detests. I declined his challenge at the time as he and I had both had far too much to drink for any good to come of it. But I think the question is a good one. I think all poets – and all those who love poetry – should be prepared to defend it from time to time. Here, then, is the beginning of my attempt (or my attempt at the beginning) of a defense of poetry.

Without entirely disagreeing with MacLeish, I don’t think separating the fact of a poem from ‘meaning’ is a useful or even possible thing. For me, while poetry isn’t merely, or even primarily, a vehicle for the straightforward communication of ideas, it is inherently meaningful, in a more profound way than prose, or any other use of language I can think of.

For me, a poem is a way of understanding being, a lens for viewing the world – not entirely unlike a microscope or a telescope. Several years ago I rode my motorcycle through the desert, and the whole time lines from The Waste Land and ‘The Hollow Men’ rattled around inside my helmet (along with lines from Paul Simon’s ‘Hearts and Bones’ when we rode through the mountains in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico). I cannot see a crow without thinking of Ted Hughes’s cycle of poems, or a blackbird without Wallace Stevens coming to mind.

It goes deeper than that. There are things that cannot be so much thought as felt, and this is really where poetry excels. As E.E. Cummings put it, we are ‘nobodybutourselves’ when we feel, but everybody else when we think or know or believe. The job of the poet is to be ‘nobodybutyourself in words’, which is no mean feat. After all, the words do not belong to us. They are public. They are everybody else’s more than they are ours.

Words, for poets, are not mere ‘signifiers’, and their use of them is not a kind of ‘discourse’, as the philosophers of language would have it. They are raw materials, out of which not ‘signification’ but ‘meaning’ is made, a meaning that is not about being, but rather is a type of being itself, per MacLeish.

Words, of course, are a difficult material to work with. As I said, they are public, and have public uses, significations, that are distinct from their use in poetry. I am not suggesting here that they have different definitions or connotations than in their public use, or that they become emptied of those; but that their everyday meanings, and their sounds, their rhythms, in a poem combine to create something beyond mere signification, in much the same way that our synaptic firings combine to be not just brain activity, but consciousness, which seems to resist reduction to its material cause. (More on that, perhaps, another time.)

T.S. Eliot touched on the difficulty of the raw material of poetry in his Four Quartets, describing the ‘intolerable wrestle with words and meanings’ as ‘raids on the inarticulate’ with ‘shabby equipment’ and ‘undisciplined squads of emotion’. The end result, for Eliot, is only learning ‘to get the better of words/ For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which/ One is no longer disposed to say it’. It is this sort of ‘failure’, to use Eliot’s word, that Auden likely had in mind when, paraphrasing Paul Valery, he said that poems are never finished, but only abandoned.

I could go on, but I’ll leave it there for now. I’d be interested to know your thoughts, though – whoever is reading this.