Ep.125 – Stephen Lightbown (and the last from me!!)

Ep125 Stephen LightbownSo, the time has come for me to step down as producer of this wonderful series. It has been an amazing six years and I can’t believe I’ve managed to squeeze in so many poets (over 200!). The conversations have been wonderful and illuminating. I feel supremely lucky to have had this opportunity.

But now I hand the reins/mixing desk over to PJ to steer the podcast into the future, which I’m sure he’ll do brilliantly.

I’m so happy I got to sit down (virtually) with Stephen Lightbown for my final and 125th episode of Lunar Poetry Podcasts. It’s been great to watch him develop as a writer and organiser of events and leader/instigator of discussions around accessibility to poetry.

We started off by chatting about his debut collection Only Air (Burning Eye Books, 2019) and his desire to write about his personal experiences as a wheelchair user and finished off by talking about  accessing online poetry events during the UK’s COVID-19 lockdown.

Below is a transcript of the conversation with the poetry readings redacted but if you’d like to read a full transcript then you can download one here.

The episode should be available wherever you get your podcasts but if you prefer to use a desktop computer then follow this link to SoundCloud.

David Turner xx

 

 

Transcript by Christabel Smith:

 

Episode host: Peter deGraft-Johnson – PJ

Conversation host: David Turner  – DT

Conversation guest: Stephen Lightbown – SL

Introduction:

PJ:       Hello, ladies, blokes and non-binary folks, welcome to episode 125 of the Lunar Poetry Podcast. As the more, keen-eared listeners will have noticed, I am not David Turner. Not to worry, though. He’ll be back at the end of the episode to say a final goodbye, as he steps down from hosting this incredible podcast, which I’m happy to be taking over.

For now, allow me to reintroduce myself. My name is Peter deGraft-Johnson. I usually speak fast, drop my Ts. Some of you will already know me as The Repeat Beat Poet, but here, with you, I’ll just be going by PJ, for the interests of levity and brevity. That’s PJ, like pyjamas, not BJ, like certain sexual acts or thatch-headed prime ministers.

In this episode, David speaks to the Bristol-based, Blackburn-born, NHS worker, activist for wheelchair users and fantastic poet, Stephen Lightbown, about his debut poetry collection, which is a reflective, gritty, uplifting set of poems entitled Only Air, which was published by Burning Eye Books in 2019. They also discuss performing, watching and joining in with poetry, purely on digital platforms, as we’re still in this extended Corona season.

The pair also talk about how Stephen grew to write extensively, but not exclusively, about his personal experiences as a wheelchair user and challenging the restrictive norms of how we view, or more likely ignore, people with spinal-cord injuries or differing accessibility needs. It’s a brilliant interview and you can find more of Stephen’s work @SpokeandPencil across social media.

You can also find a full and free transcript of this episode on our website, www.lunarpoetrypodcast.com, alongside all the previous episodes and their accompanying transcripts too. It’s very useful if you like to read along with the poems. On the website, you will also see our poetry podcast finder for UK and Ireland, which is a database of nearly 100 other poetry podcasts that you can use to scratch your poetry itch, including the remarkable A Poem A Week, heralded by Lizzy Turner, which I have also appeared on.

It’s a brilliant show, but  I am slightly biased. All links will be in the description, of course. Last but not least, a bit of good news. Back in April, I applied for an emergency Covid grant from the Arts Council England, to continue the great work of this podcast and thankfully, that application was successful. So we will be releasing podcasts regularly towards the end of summer and in autumn.

You can keep up with all the latest Lunar Poetry news by following Lunar Poetry Podcasts on Facebook or the newly launched Twitter account @lunarpoetrypod, alongside subscribing to us on SoundCloud, Podbean, Stitcher, Acast, Apple Podcast, Spotify or wherever you go for your quality podcasts.

I’m on ‘Repeat Beat Poet’ on all platforms if you would like to contact me, but for now, I’ll leave you for the last time in the incredible, capable hands of David Tuner and Stephen Lightbown.

Conversation: 

SL:        

[We are unable to reproduce this reading here. To read this poem download a full transcript here.]

DT:      Thank you very much, Stephen. How are you doing?

SL:       It’s good to be here.

DT:      We’re coming towards what feels like the [end of] most intense period of Covid-19 lockdown in the UK, but we are still observing social-distancing rules and we’re talking via FaceTime on our Macs. So it seems strange to say nice to be here because we are both not here.

SL:       I’m not even two metres away from my laptop.

DT:      We’re all here, but not here. It’s a Saturday morning, we’re doing what is to be my 125th and final recording and this is only the second I’ve ever done not sat in front of someone, but it’s all going to be fine because I know Stephen really well. I should probably clarify that we are friends.

SL:       We are.

DT:      This happens quite a lot in poetry. You meet people, become friends with them, I never expected to consider so many poets friends, but here we are, five years in, and there’s a whole bunch of them.

 

SL:       And friends because of the podcast because we first met at Verve Festival. I’d been listening to the podcast and connected on social media and you came up and said hello and it blossomed from there.

DT:      One more, final caveat and this is more for the listeners. We’re going to be touching on some topics today and because we are friends, I may ask some questions with far more informality than I would if I didn’t know Stephen. It’s important to say things like that because sometimes, when you drop in on friends’ conversations, lines of questioning can seem a bit glib or insensitive. That isn’t for you, Stephen, it’s purely for the listeners.

SL:       Understood.

DT:      So you just read a poem there from a book and you should tell us about that book.

SL:       It’s one of the poems from my debut collection, a book called Only Air, which came out last March 2019 through Burning Eye Books. It’s a book that charts my experience of 25, 20 really, years of when I started writing poems about my life as a wheelchair user. I had an accident when I was 16. I was sledging in the snow.

I thought it would be a good idea to sledge backwards through some trees, also when it was dark. There were lots of things I probably should have been thinking it would have been a good idea to avoid. I hit a tree and spent six months in a spinal unit. Now I’m a paraplegic, full-time wheelchair user.

About 15 years after the accident, someone bought me a notebook and I started to jot some things down and that led to me going on a poetry course with Malaika Booker which led to me writing a poem, A Letter To My Legs, as a way of saying, I’m really sorry for kind of ignoring you for the past 20 years because this strange, detached feeling that I had with parts of my body that I couldn’t feel anymore.

Malaika suggested there might be something in that in terms of writing more poems on my disability and my chair and how that feels. I’d wanted to get into poetry as a way of getting away from that, from writing about anything but my chair, as an escape. In this notebook, when I flicked through the early pages, I’m writing about how much I enjoy baked potatoes and hedgehogs and football and all sorts of weird stuff.

 

Actually, I went home, started writing and couldn’t stop. Then four or five years later, I had all these poems and just felt like they wanted to fit into some kind of collection. I didn’t know what else to do with them, but I wanted to share them.

DT:      What was the timescale of [moving from] writing for yourself to thinking about an audience?

SL:       It was quite quick really. I didn’t even start showing an interest in poetry until my mid-30s so I was late to this really. I didn’t consider myself a poet at the time, I was just writing stuff down and they all rhymed, they were all daft. I didn’t read poetry and the ego in me said I didn’t need to read poetry, I didn’t really like poetry, I just liked writing it, but then I’ve always been a bit of a show-off.

That’s also why the accident happened, because I was showing off. I’ve always had that in me from a really young age, being extroverted and wanting to be the centre of attention but also wondering why I wanted to be the centre of attention and shying away from that at the same time. It wasn’t that long after writing these poems that I started to think…

I’d just been through quite a big break-up and I was going on dates and I was that annoying person who would read poems to people. I look back now and actually die inside because they were terrible. I was performing them at that point. I think I was using these first dates as a way of trying to create an audience and get some feedback. The feedback was that there weren’t many second dates.

I was in London and a lot of this stuff was around. John Hegley was doing a regular thing at the poetry café. You could turn up and he would read some poems and you could read a poem back. I went to a Poetry Stanza group in Greenwich, but then amongst writing these poems, I was coming up towards the 20-year anniversary of my accident and I had the idea to write 20 poems for 20 years.

I wanted to produce, put them into a little pamphlet myself and give 20 of those pamphlets out to close family and friends. So 20 poems, 20 years, 20 pamphlets. I had that then in my non-poetry life, one of these dates worked and turned into a marriage. I changed jobs and moved to Bristol. Moving to Bristol completely consolidated my love for poetry. I guess that’s where it took off. There’s a fantastic poetry scene in Bristol, but it feels quite compact at the same time.

There’s lots of things to go to, lots of things to listen to, people were really willing to share and talk and things like that. Quite quickly, I started to absorb a lot of information that led to conversations with people. I was able to read more, which meant I was building a bit of a profile in Bristol and then I was approached by Burning Eye to see if I had a manuscript.

Really, from someone buying me that notepad and writing poems about baked potatoes and not reading anything else, to the book coming out, was about seven years.

DT:      It’s very natural for people who get into writing poems as adults, there’s a period where the poems are almost diary entries and you’re writing to yourself and working out your emotions, then there’s a transition, sometimes a sharp leap. For some people, it’s smooth and long drawn-out, you don’t really notice it, but you move from diary entries to deliberate communications with audiences. You’re not talking to yourself strictly anymore, you’re talking to other people.

SL:       That’s right. The first poems, personally, I personally felt were quite cathartic. They were like free therapy because I was able to articulate thoughts that I was having and anger and resentment that built up from being in the chair. That enabled me to put this stuff down on paper and question it, question whether or not I actually felt like that and move beyond that initial anger and draw out why I was feeling angry, what it was making me feel that way.

I wasn’t doing it for any other reason. For me, it was a purely personal learning process. I’ve spoken to other poets who say, it’s not cathartic because it’s an art form or whatever, but for me, the art-form side of it, the performing side wasn’t coming into it at that point when I was writing these particular poems, because I found that poetry, the succinctness and ability to use different forms and the way to play around with language was giving me a platform to challenge the way I thought about things, more than if I was just going to write prose or pure diary entries, which I had been doing before.

I’d kind of had bits of therapy in the past and they didn’t always work for me because I felt like I didn’t want to stick at it. I’d have three or four sessions and be like, right, done, I’m sorted, I’m all right. One thing that did stick was to write a positive diary, so write a good thing, ignore everything else that happens in that day. Even if the only thing that someone does is make you a cup of tea, write that in as a diary entry.

I was flicking through this stuff, I’d stuck at it for about a year and I was, actually, there are some positive things in there, but doing that made me think more about how I actually fit into the world. I started to think how society and societal things about not being able to get on a train without asking for assistance. I was like, actually, this is all right, me understanding this, but this is bullshit, this stuff shouldn’t be happening.

I then found I wanted to use it as a way of changing perceptions, try to challenge the norms people had. I made a conscious decision. I thought, I can go and read poems at open mic night and write about whatever, trees or love or rainbows or whatever it might be and that would be fine, I would be a poet in a wheelchair that wrote about those things. Or I could make a conscious decision to be a poet in a wheelchair that talks about those things that probably not that many other people are talking about on that open mic if nowhere else.

I realised I was going to those events, I wasn’t seeing people like me, I wasn’t hearing poems that I could connect to on a real, personal level. I could connect to people talking about, I dunno, love of football or something, but I didn’t really see anybody talking about… There were poems about mental health, poems about the body, relationship with body and occasionally, poems about disability, but nothing specific to me about spinal-cord injury and being a wheelchair user.

I made that conscious decision that was what I wanted to write about. I didn’t mind if I was pigeon-holed.

DT:      So we’re 13, 14 months on from the publication of Only Air and as you say a very conscious decision on your part to talk about your experiences as a wheelchair user. It’s hard to separate the person I know and the memories I have of them from the writing and sometimes I transfer their personalities onto the writing and read a lot into it because I know the people. That whole idea of a journey through writing and so much of it starting from anger reflects a lot in my own writing process and that of others.

As you were saying, there’s a lot of writing about mental-health issues and certain forms of disability, class and other subjects where you might feel your body or you as a person are not always welcome in the world around you, and there’s a natural transition. The healthy thing seems to be you realise that your own body is not the issue, it’s the fact the world around you won’t allow it to fit in. Now you’ve had time to reflect on the book, do you find it’s been successful in that?

SL:       I think so. One of the things I try to do, as well, quite quickly the anger poems moved to one side. I then made another decision that I wanted to normalise my life in public. I wanted to talk about the things everyone else was doing that people maybe didn’t think I could do, like relationships or having a job or going on holiday, doing those things people maybe don’t assume are fairly normal things to do.

Quite a lot of people have come up to me and said afterwards, I’d never even thought about that before, I’d never thought what it would be like for someone who can’t feel half of their body to lie in bed next to someone who can feel all of their body, that person who can feel all of their body stroking your legs and you’ve got no idea that’s happening, ;but that’s a real, intimate moment you’ve shared and I feel privileged to be let in on that and know a little bit more.’

Also I think my wife and I both reflect on the fact that people are inquisitive. I’ve had a lot of time to get over it and get used to people asking me really random questions. For my wife, who’s still fairly new to this, we’ve been together for four or five years, I can’t remember. Keep that in because it won’t make a difference, she’ll find something to shout at me about in this anyway, it might as well be the fact I can’t remember how long we’ve been together.

She is still getting used to people saying really random questions about our relationship and why she’s with me. She’s like, well, he’s got a Northern accent, that’s what I liked about him. But he’s in a chair. She forgets and that’s really good for us, so it annoys her when it’s the first thing people think about. For me, I thought I may as well answer some of these questions because I know people in the audience are thinking them.

If I’m sat over there, reading a poem about something else, I know people are thinking, how did he have an accident? Was it a car crash? Part of me thinks I might as well own that information. The book has helped in terms of me just being a bit more OK about what I’m prepared to share and not share, but also I think it has enabled other people in similar situations to come up and say thanks, I’ve read that book and that really resonated with my life.

DT:      You mentioned you were happy when you first started reading [poetry] to be pigeon-holed as disabled writer because you were firm in that you wanted to own that and you wanted to be representative of voices you weren’t hearing at events. Was it the audience interaction afterwards that helped you realise you weren’t only appearing as that?

I hate to make it seem like a solitary pursuit because it’s not. You spoke about going to writing groups and moving to Bristol and there being a community, it isn’t an isolating thing, but it can feel isolating because you’re with your own thoughts all the time. It isn’t until you meet readers or read at events and you hear from audience members that you realise how open your own writing is. It’s not just about that singular subject, is it?

SL:       That’s right and you’d think you’d be writing about one topic and read a poem and someone comes up and talks to you about that poem and says ‘oh my God, that really resonated with me, that poem about your dad’. I was like, that was a poem about my dad? Oh, right, fair enough. I didn’t realise that was a poem about my dad, that was a poem about me being a child and this, that and the other.

You can write a poem. What you can’t do is dictate what people take from that poem. I think that’s one of the joys about this. I’ve not had many reviews of my poetry, but the ones I do, I’m really intrigued when people say I really like the way you put that line after that line. I’m like yeah, that was a happy accident. I don’t know how much thought goes into this. There’s an element of craft, but also, I think I’ll take that praise where it comes.

It’s quite nice to be considered to be a poet. There’s always that imposter syndrome that sits in this sort of stuff, that feeling that maybe I’m only being asked to read because of the chair and I’m reading something that might me, ironically, stand out in a group of other poets all talking about similar issues. I learnt to go with that.

There’s always something to fight against. Equally, there’s always a way of thinking, do you know what? I’ll just take this door that’s been opened or this opportunity and I’ll just go with it and make it work for me.

DT:      In the time we’ve known each other, it’s like you’ve been on an X Factor-like personal journey to find this balance in your writing, where you can simultaneously embody personal feelings around access and representation and being labelled by other people as one thing and how restrictive that can be. Ironic and really fucking annoying, you can be talking about matters around restriction and lack of representation and by doing so, you’re labelled as one thing and then restricted in another way. You seem to have come quite a long way in finding your own balance with those things.

SL:       Yeah, definitely. Before I wrote poetry, before I used it as a thing that consumed and filled my time, I liked doing endurance sporting events. I would do marathons and triathlons and long-distance swims. I would really throw myself into the training. I’d get really wound up and the competitive side of me would come out. That was basically to prove to people I could still do this stuff.

In my career as well, I progressed quite quickly in my day job, chased promotions and moved around the country trying to get these jobs. I was thrashing myself, all to prove I could do these things. I wasn’t going to be held back by my chair. Coinciding with writing the poetry was I had a few injuries and an illness, I then wasn’t able to train as much as before, so the poetry filled that time.

The more I wrote, the more my wife said I was becoming much more chilled out, like I was finding much more peace with not having to constantly prove people wrong. Finding that balance of being happy to be on stage and say this is who I am, this is what I’m talking about and I’m not bothered whether you are impressed by this or not, I just want to talk to you about it, that balance really helped.

I wasn’t really bothered if I was pigeon-holed or not. I don’t know if I would consider myself a political poet in a sense. I’m not canvassing for change all the time, I’m not wanting people to go and lobby their MPs, but weirdly, I’ve been asked to write more think pieces on some of this stuff, outside of poetry, or talk about this stuff.

I think if you can be true to yourself and true to your experiences…. Also, I think I would be setting myself up for a fall if I felt like reading my poems to 10 people was going to change the world. It’s not. But if it makes one person in that room think slightly differently, or maybe doesn’t sprint across a car park to ask someone they see getting out of a car in a wheelchair if they need help, then that’s great.

That’s all you can hope for really and I think it helped me manage my expectations about the book. Not everyone’s going to win a Forward prize. Not everyone’s going to sell thousands of copies and be asked to do Nationwide adverts or opening festivals and all that sort of stuff. That doesn’t mean your poetry doesn’t count. It doesn’t mean there’s not a place for it and it doesn’t mean that even if you don’t have a book and all you’re doing is scribbling on Post-It notes, that’s absolutely fine.

DT:      I’m going to disagree with something you just said, maybe because I don’t think you’re giving yourself enough credit. I’m in agreement that reality is if you’re reading to relatively small audiences, it’s not going to have wide-ranging impact because logistically, it can’t. But your energy and the way you look at poetry has had an effect on the organisers of events. I would argue that will have far-reaching impact.

The way you talk and enter discussions on social media will have a significant impact on other writers with a wide range of access needs. I think it’s important for listeners to know that most people that know you would disagree that it’s not having an effect.

You mentioned you weren’t seeing or hearing people with spinal-cord injuries. Obviously, a very narrow view would be to say most poetry events are held in basements or back rooms of pubs and it’s hard to get into them, but that lets people off from doing something about it.

SL:       I agree. I’m happy to be challenged in the way you just did because again, whenever you embark on something new with a disability, there are new ways to then be frustrated at the injustices you face because I was focused on not being able to get on public transport or a beach to go surfing.

Now I’m in poetry. Right, now I’m going to get annoyed about the fact I can’t get in venues or if you can get in, there’s no disabled toilet, or if you can get in there and have a pee, actually you can’t get on the stage and you’ve got to sit in front of the stage and no one can see you. You’re right in the sense lots of events are held upstairs in pubs, downstairs in basements in quite small venues.

I’m also pragmatic enough to appreciate there’s not much money in poetry and a lot of people putting events on are doing it out of goodwill. They’re doing it at a loss and venues are expensive. You’re not selling tickets at £20 a time and 200 people are turning up. You’re getting £3, £4, £5 a ticket, maybe 20 people are in the room and you’ve got to pay travel expenses for your headliner and a fee and maybe the venue is secondary.

I’ve heard people talk before about ‘why would I? I would not want to ever be contacted by somebody with a disability about putting an event on, so why would I put an event on that’s accessible?’ I get it’s the right thing to do, but it’s going to cost me more money and no one’s going to turn up. Well, no one’s turning up because they’re not seeing people. It takes time to do this stuff.

Equally, the time it takes to get people in your audience, your event might have stopped because maybe you got bored or things have moved on or you moved away. There is a cycle to these things that’s really difficult, but actually, I think it’s hard a lot of the time because people are consumed with you putting that event on. They’re not necessarily having the brain space to think about actually, some of these things are quite straightforward.

It’s not that hard to think about. I was contacted to read at a new event that was starting. They said, it’s in this venue, the venue’s fine, it’s accessible, there’s a loo and all that sort of stuff, but the venue have said they’re going to bring a stage in. It’s a temporary stage, are you happy to sit in front of it?

I was like, the venue doesn’t have a stage, you’re going to bring one in for the night, why bring it in at all?  It doesn’t need it, you’re only going to have 15 people, they’re all going to see us, you don’t need to be onstage. They were like, oh yeah, good point. I’m happy to have those conversations with people to talk about stuff.

I’ve been talking a lot about conscious decisions, but when I did the launch for Only Air, I wanted it to be as accessible as possible. I sometimes go to talks when they want to talk about accessibility and poetry and I get there and  realise what they’re talking about is whether or not you can understand sonnet 67 that Shakespeare wrote because it’s written in a language that’s maybe quite difficult to understand, it’s not talking about things we ‘get’.

I’m thinking OK, that’s accessibility in one form, that’s not the accessibility I’m thinking about. Before we even get to that, we need to think whether or not I can get into this venue to hear this poetry. That is a conversation that doesn’t happen enough in poetry circles. There’s a lot of focus on whether or not spoken word has a place alongside page poetry and are we still able to celebrate poetry that was written 100 years ago and who’s on what shelf and who’s won what award?

The actual reality is the fact there is a whole part of our population that is not allowed into poetry events and no one seems to really mind that much. I think that’s pretty disgraceful. There is a lot more we can do about that. We can get onto that when we talk about lockdown and how that has helped in some ways. But yeah, I made a conscious decision that I wanted to make my nights as accessible as I could make them.

I say that because I realised very quickly that I only knew about access and disability in terms of my own personal experiences and actually, I was very naïve when it came to other things. I was devastated when I realised other people were coming to my events who had disabilities different to me and my event wasn’t accessible to them. I was like, I have made you feel like I feel when I go to events and I’m not having that.

DT:      This is my point about not doing yourself down when talking about your own impact. One of the most positive outcomes of that event was your ability to talk openly and honestly about the areas you felt you’d failed in. It’s only through us as a community talking about our own mistakes that anyone else can learn from them. How else will you know unless people have told you?

What’s important is to avoid a situation where it becomes incumbent on the person with access needs to have to tell you how to solve these things. Just so listeners know, I hosted that launch and recorded it and whilst we both feel if we’re going to say an event or project is accessible, we are both very proactive in saying what does that mean?

Suddenly on the night, we realised neither of us had any expertise in how to use an induction loop, which is a system which enables a microphone link to hearing aids for anyone who’s using them in the audience. We found out halfway through the event that it wasn’t working because neither of us had really thought you might have to check that.

Unfortunately, in a lot of circumstances, you need a hearing aid to test it. It’s only through being willing, or not too overly embarrassed by admitting that publicly, that other people might think oh shit, I’ve never thought about that either.

SL:       That’s right. I was gutted about that, but I didn’t want it to spoil the night, particularly for the people in the audience that didn’t work for. Being able to have a conversation with them and come to a solution, which is where I gave them a copy of the book and the poems that were going to be read out, so they could follow, it was by no means an ideal situation, but the feedback I got afterwards was they appreciated that and we have continued the dialogue since then about what worked and what could be improved at different events.

I have no problems with making that mistake. I have a problem with making that mistake again going forwards. I can’t beat myself up for not knowing something, but I can try and make sure that doesn’t happen again and try and use that, as you say, as a way of helping other people figure stuff out.

I think this is where I feel I’ve grown as a performer, or someone who’s interested in poetry because being fairly new to poetry, you go to a workshop and someone will say right, you need to read every day. You go to something and someone will say have you read this poem by X? And you’ll be like no, I haven’t, I’m a terrible poet and you go away and buy that book.

I’m forever buying books without ever reading them because I’m spending more of my time reading other books. Before I started this, I thought sonnet was a song by The Verve, I didn’t realise it was anything else. So I could spend all my time reading and learning about form and poets or trying to learn about putting on events and talking to other people about events and trying to make them accessible.

Again, it’s about that balance. I want to grow personally with this art form I’m choosing to get into, but also, I want to spend a lot of my time that is consumed by poetry, in terms of sharing it and allowing other people to share their poems. I’m not bothered if I never read another poem again if it means 50 other poets with disabilities can read their poems and talk about their experiences, because I think that’s important.

A lot of people think they’re not sharing their poems, they’re not able to get open mics, so maybe they think their standard of poetry is not up to that of the people who are able to read poems 20 times a week. It’s a slower, longer process to hone your craft and get to a standard where you maybe feel you’re growing. It takes longer because the events are fewer and far between.

DT:      This is a good point to take a second reading, then we’ll visit the invisible digital world of poetry events.

SL:       Given it’s lockdown, I was thinking of things I’ve missed during lockdown and one is cinema, so I thought I’d read this poem. It’s called;

[We are unable to reproduce this reading here. To read this poem download a full transcript here.]

DT:      We obviously now exist in a world where physical access to any space is heavily restricted for everyone. I think we’re over the worst of able-bodied people on Twitter complaining they can’t get anywhere, as though it’s suddenly a new phenomenon that some people might not be able to get to certain spaces. This goes across many industries and sectors. Obviously the arts sector already had some experience of digital events and streaming.

A lot of artists have led the way in making sure events can be continued online on platforms that are being used fresh for these sorts of things, like Zoom, Instagram Live. You’re a poet who’s embracing Instagram Live and you’ve got these Instagram sessions weekly.

SL:       Lockdown has been a really interesting time. I caveat all this conversation, like I have with everything, these are my personal experiences, I’m not an expert on anyone with a disability that may have their own experiences of lockdown. I fully appreciate I’m lucky in the sense I have a partner I get on with, I live in a nice flat, we’ve not been short of things to eat.

It’s not been particularly traumatic for us, but it’s been really interesting. At the start of this year [2020], I had five weeks off work. My body had given up on me, I was not able to get off the sofa, I was physically tired and every part of me ached. I had five weeks off where I didn’t really leave the house. I’d gone back to work after that period for a couple of weeks then lockdown happened.

I felt I’d done my warm-up, I was ready to go for lockdown, I knew what to expect. I have tried not to get frustrated at people saying this is really hard, I’m struggling with isolation and the difficulty of not being allowed out because equally, I’ve seen lots of people with disabilities say this is not a new thing, welcome to our world, this is what we have been experiencing all our lives. We have long periods stuck inside.

Again, I think well, I’ve had 25 years to get used to not getting out and not being able to get to stuff. It is scary and worrying and frustrating, I can see why anxiety and mental-health problems would come along quite quickly if it’s not something you’re used to. I didn’t go straight from a 16-year-okd who was playing football all day, riding my back every day, to being a wheelchair user and just crack on and think there was nothing wrong with it.

I was pretty angry and beaten up for a few years while I came to terms with that, so I think it takes time to get our head around anything that challenges the equilibrium, which is what’s happening at the moment. Any kind of normal that anyone had has been challenged to a degree, pretty much. There are people, early adopters in some sense, who embraced that and thought whatever I do, whether it’s fitness classes, poetry, film reviews, whatever it might be, let’s stick that online, let’s get that contact out there, because it’s giving people something to do.

Also, it’s given me an outlet to be able to do these things. Either that might be monetary because you’ve had an income dry up or it might be creatively or it might be to alleviate boredom, like I’ve watched pretty much everything on Netflix and I can’t sit and watch TV anymore, I have to do something that’s connected with people.

What I’ve been really interested to observe, coming back to the conversation we’ve had about accessibility, and this isn’t just poetry, as someone who likes going to the cinema, there are at least five or six cinemas in Bristol of which only half are physically wheelchair-accessible. I moved to Bristol thinking it was this amazing musical hub where I was going to be discovering new bands every night, then realised maybe three-quarters of the venues are not accessible to wheelchairs, and seeing lots of these things that have previously said to you we’re in a really old building, we’re really sorry we haven’t got the funding, we can’t put a lift in, we’re up a flight of stairs, so it’s not accessible, all of a sudden, they’re online streaming gigs by Zoom.

So you think so you were accessible, you found a way to be accessible. You’re not doing this to be accessible, you’re doing this because you don’t want to lose that income or lose out on putting content out there and you want to still exist so you can exist when all this is over. I’ve gone through many different emotions over the last few weeks of actively not joining those sorts of sessions because I’m like why should I join you now, just because you’re online?

Then I was like, no, no, I’m going to join these sessions and I’m going to let them know I’m going to tweet about them and scare them. I’m going to email them and say I’ve been able to join your session, you weren’t accessible then, you are now, make sure this carries on afterwards. Then there’s another balance in the sense that it’s hard because I get what it means for artists and performers because people are struggling for income and lots of this stuff, people are doing for free.

I really hope it doesn’t end up being at the expense of things in the real world once this is over. We still need to be out there, we still need to be in venues, we still need to feel that hum of an audience. You still need to feel that adrenaline of sitting in front of someone and reading poems or performing or playing the guitar, whatever it is you do.

Equally, I think there’s a world where both can co-exist. We’ve proved now that you could put an event on and live stream that for people who can’t connect and come to your event. You could put an event on where you’ve got seven people reading at an open mic and three people Zooming in and you put them on a screen because they might not be able to make it, they might have an illness, they might have a physical disability that means they can’t get into your venue.

Equally the same for performers. I’ve shied away from going to read in places around the country because travel is more expensive and it takes maybe two days out to do something, I can’t just drive there and drive back that evening. Accessible rooms in hotels are more expensive, or hotels with accessible rooms are more expensive than bunking down in a YHA, something like that.

Now it means I could headline an event in Newcastle and not have to leave home and I think we could be richer for it. Just in lieu of having anything else to do, I’ve started using Instagram Live to share some poems. What’s been really interesting, we spoke at the start about being able to sit in front of an audience, a physical audience, in my chair, and be a disabled poet.

I now exist in a three square of someone’s device and I’m white, now middle-class, straight bloke in my 40s on a screen and every 10 seconds, I feel I have to say yeah, I write or read my poems about a wheelchair user. I realise all this stuff I’ve been trying to get away from, this idea that I feel like part of me is missing. The bit you can’t see in the screen is the bit of me in my chair and I’m like shit, I didn’t realise that, this is annoying, but good at the same time.

DT:      Your point’s interesting about some larger organisations conflating accessibility with their desperate wish not to become irrelevant. Just to make sure you’re permanently on people’s lips is not the same as becoming accessible.

When you told me the other day about how you now feel the pressure to keep reminding people logging into Instagram Live that you are in fact a wheelchair user, suddenly made me think about whenever I go to open mics and have the opportunity to read one poem. You think, I’m going to read that one about psychosis or suicide or being in a psychiatric unit and then you think shit, do I have to set this up and say I’ve had all this lived experience?

I was also thinking about how much effort you have put, like a lot of performers, into how you use your body and then suddenly, for so many of us, we’re unable to do that in the confines of a video screen. Especially when streaming from a phone.

There’s the horrible advert that keeps playing on the TV about the new Facebook webcam you put on your TV because you can get more people in. It’s actually quite a fair point. As a performer, you’re used to people having this wide range of vision and suddenly, you’re restricted to this little box. It doesn’t mean we can’t perform within this space, it’s just suddenly we’re having to think about it.

All this effort you’ve put into how you present yourself on stage, you specifically, that’s out the window because people can’t see you.

SL:       That’s right, but I’m trying to maintain some of that. I still put on my poetry performing clothes. I bought clothes last year when I was doing the launch. I thought what is the persona of the person? so I bought some more loud shirts than I would normally wear and I’m still putting those on, I’m doing my hair, which is quite fun.

I’m learning to style hair that’s 15 times longer than it’s ever been in my life, but I’m still dressing that box behind me. I’ve put things there that people might subconsciously see. It’s a bit of Derren Brown going on in all of this, where I’m placing stuff in there that I want people to see.

I’ve got a little tiny Lego version of me that sits in a wheelchair. I now put that behind me and I’ve had a poster made of me in my chair and that sits behind me when I’m doing these readings as well. There’s a way of being able to play some music on my laptop that kind of feeds into the Instagram Live, so I’m playing with the form a bit. In a way, I’ve done in putting the launch together, I’m learning at pace and absorbing and dipping into other things people do.

That’s the other thing. Apart from my mum, who’s dialled into everything so far and is commenting, I’m like thanks, Mum, this is the equivalent of sticking me on the fridge, like you get to put a strong-arm emoji on Instagram Live and I love you for it, thanks very much, you’ve got people dipping in and out and it throws you a little bit, in the same way you might be midway through a poem and someone stands up and walks out to go to the bar.

It’s trying to recreate these things and go with that and not be thrown by it. Also, talking to people as they’re commenting, or acknowledging people that may be there. I think it was the first one I did, I just treated it like it was a poetry night. I pretended to be the host, the open mic support act and the headliner. All I did was put a pair of glasses on, a hat, whatever it was.

It was like we could play around a little bit more and be creative in this space we’ve got given. Also, I’m still learning by fast track the accessibility of these forums. One of the things I’ve been frustrated by is still around what is accessible for me might not be for someone else. Personally, I think I’m going to struggle when lockdown ends because I have never felt more connected to the world.

I am dialling into fitness classes and poetry events and readings and workshops across the world. Not once have I had to ask anybody if this Zoom is wheelchair accessible or can I read at this event? I’ve just turned up and done it, dialled in. Snuck in at the back, whatever it might be. I’ve realised actually, when you’ve been allowed out, I go back out and my frustrations at the world have been ramped up again because I can’t get in a shop or this bit here is inaccessible.

I feel really connected. At the same time, I’m aware that if I had a hearing impairment, maybe it wouldn’t be so accessible because people aren’t looking at the camera. If they’re reading off a page, they’re looking slightly offscreen and it’s more difficult to lip read. You can’t caption it in real time, the software doesn’t allow it. Zoom, you can’t spotlight two people talking at the same time, so it would be really difficult to have somebody reading and somebody doing BSL.

That is a really, really simple flaw that wouldn’t be that difficult to set up. One of the people I’ve been talking to, someone that signed at one of my events last year, I’ve been talking about whether or not we could do a split screen on Instagram Live and she will sign in real time as I’m doing that. That’s something I’m hoping to do and really looking forward to doing.

I’m not bored of reading my own poems, but I’d like to use it as an opportunity to talk to other poets about their experiences and talk to publishers about what it’s like to be a publisher in lockdown. If you were an event person previously, what was that like? The 12 people that dial into these things, it’s the same thing.

Holly McNish has hundreds of people dialling in and watching her stuff, but actually hundreds of people go to her events when she reads. When I go to read at open mic, it’s just 12 people in the room and I’m really happy to cater to those 12 people. It’s difficult to get out of that mindset to compare yourself to people. They’ve got 25,000 on their Instagram, I’ve got 1000. I love these 12 people that are coming in all the time and joining in.

You’ve just got to be open-minded and go with it and hope some of it carries on afterwards. The other thing that’s really interesting is I worry about when we’re allowed back out again and venues start up again, poems we’ll see in the real world again, I worry poets with disabilities will get left behind. We’ve been writing a lot about isolation and being on our own and what that means and not necessarily having the platform to be able to do that.

Next year, probably, we will be so bored of hearing poems about people writing about isolation and what that means, but I know there are lots of people with disabilities who’ve said they’re struggling to find the time to write because they can’t pay for a carer to come into the house. Their physical needs are more demanding because they’re not getting the care they need from being able to go to a GP or hospital or get people to come in and look after them, physiotherapy-type stuff.

That sense of having that space, maybe not everyone’s writing. That’s OK if you’re surviving and looking after yourself. So there’s going to be another element of catch-up. By the time we come to put some of this stuff down on paper about our experiences of lockdown, everyone might be bored of hearing about these experiences. There’s always something to be thinking about and being mindful of that is really important.

DT:      I’ve been thinking a lot about yes, being able to access events digitally is infinitely better than not being able to access events at all, but it’s not the same as being able to access events physically. I’m hoping this isn’t seen as an easy way out for organisations to claim full accessibility. It’s brilliant because it will allow performers to perform.

If we can accept that performers have the ability to stream and join events and have the technology, it means you could be headlining in Sydney from Bristol. That would be an amazing thing. It’s good for the environment, it cuts costs of events down. If people are happy to accept seeing someone on a video screen, then why not do it? None of this considers audience members and getting people together physically.

One of the things that has come up consistently through conversations on this podcast about access is what you miss out on as a writer or artist if you’re not able to hang out with other artists at the end of events and how much you miss out in terms of publishing and performance opportunities. Abi Palmer, who’s been on the podcast a few times, has spoken a lot about how disconnected she feels when she’s unable to physically be with the poetry community.

That still exists when you’re able to read digitally at events because you log off and you’re gone from the conversation. If we enter a world where digital events become much more common, I do hope some thought is put into how that social space is recreated.

SL:       Completely agree. Before we did this podcast and I was doing a bit of prep, I put something on social media and said what are people’s experiences of this and how have people found it because personally, I found it good in some respects? There were things I hadn’t realised. If you are neurodivergent, physically in an audience, you can take cues from other audience members and that’s not as possible, watching on a screen. It can be really tiring and fatiguing and attention span can be difficult because you’re dipping in and out of the screen, from what I was told.

I was like, of course. What we can do at the moment is our best but we can still continue to get better. We have to learn. If we just plateau out and keep banging out Zoom events and Instagram Lives, there also has to be a way people get paid. Just because you’re sat in your front room in front of your bookcase doesn’t mean you’re not sharing your own poems and putting effort into putting that together, you’ve not spent a good couple of hours not being able to eat and getting nervous and sweaty.

That energy, that adrenaline, that comedown afterwards still exists. In some respects, it’s more weird because as a performer, you’re not taking cues from anyone. You’re looking at yourself and you’re thinking that’s really weird. How often do you sit and read a set to yourself and not get any cues back from the audience? I grew as a performer by getting feedback from people.

That feedback, it’s easier to think you’re doing a terrific job because you put a video up and you’ve got 27 likes and three comments that say that was great, thanks very much. You think yeah, this is brilliant. It’s artificial in that sense. Nothing will ever replace being physically in front of an audience and existing and talking to other poets.

I think we can be a bit cleverer, we don’t have to keep churning out poetry readings. More conversations and thought pieces. I did a workshop this week with Roger Robinson and I thought it was brilliant, it was two hours of him talking about how he puts a book together. There’s a writing exercise in there. I could have done without the writing exercise, I just enjoyed listening to him going through his process about how he’s written his books. More of that.

Poets have mentioned how in Zoom, you can use the classroom format, go into break-out rooms and have smaller chats. I’m part of a writing group you set up in Bristol, which is still going strong. We did a writing workshop this week, there were 15 people and it’s really difficult. By the time you’re number 15 on that list, you’re saying I’m not going to give feedback because it’s the same as everyone else is giving.

Just eking our way through this, step by step, day by day, and trying to understand, but there’s a really good opportunity to understand. I’ll be really gutted if I never get to be in front of a live audience again and spend some time with people afterwards, talking about I really enjoyed your set, thanks very much, how did you pull that together? Learning in that real-life environment.

DT:      I think that might be the perfect place to stop. We’re going to take a third and final reading. It’s suddenly hit me this is the last time I’m going to say goodbye to someone. I’m glad it’s you. We will fade out straight after the poem, so I will take this opportunity to say thank you very much for coming on and being my final guest. I may pop up again, in some way, in the future, if PJ will have me, but this is firmly the final time I will be producing anything. So thank you, Stephen.

SL:       It would be remiss of me not to say thank you on behalf of every poet you’ve spoken to as part of this podcast series. You’ve done a tremendous job of giving people a platform to talk about poetry and their experiences. Through your podcast, I definitely felt I was part of a community that I didn’t know existed. It’s been a real honour to come on and be the last person to waffle on about poems also. Thanks very much for that.

DT:      If it’s made you feel part of something, I don’t think I could have done anything more. Anyway, we’ll take the poem.

SL:       I’ll give a little intro to this, if that’s all right. There are two lockdown connections to this poem. First of all, it was written during lockdown in a workshop through Spread the Word and Rachel Long, which I really enjoyed. Also, it’s part of a series of poems I’m thinking about for a second collection, which I was writing before lockdown, but strangely enough was about what would happen not to me, but I’ve invented a character of someone who’s a wheelchair user and wakes up one day and realises he’s the only person left alive in the world and what it would mean to be isolated outside of the house, isolated in the world as it would be in this new version of life. Each poem is the title of the day, set over a year. This is;

[We are unable to reproduce this reading here. To read this poem download a full transcript here.]

Outro:

DT:      Well, that’s it. Six years. Pretty crazy. A final thank you to Stephen Lightbown for his time. I suppose this conversation revolved around how we get as many people into the poetry room as possible, whether in real life or as part of these increasingly common online events. I hope the past 125 episodes of this podcast have been an entry point to these spaces and discussions to some of you.

All I ever wanted to do with this project was hold the door open for others. A huge thank you now to all of the guest hosts who have helped me offer such a wide range of episodes and, of course, to the more than 200 poets who have appeared in one way or another since 2014. None of this project would have made any sense without you lot, though. When the first episode went out, Pat Cash, I was simply happy with more than 20 people listening in.

It blows my mind to think 10s of thousands of people worldwide have stopped by at some point and spent time with me and my guests. I’m going to miss doing this a lot, I think, but it also feels right to go. Plus, if there is every going to be proper progress made improving the diversity in representation of the arts in this country then those currently holding editorial and publishing roles, I just need to get out of the fucking way.

It’s not enough to simply give platforms to under-represented artists. They need to be allowed control and to make decisions too. So this is me getting out of the way. Lots of love to you lot.

End of transcript.

Some BIG news

Hi there. As you will know if you’ve listened to the latest episode or saw my tweet yesterday I will be stepping down as producer of this podcast this summer. The next episode, no.125 will be my last. By the time I do stop it will have been 6 years of my life and I’ve really loved it all but it’s time to get out of the way. My main ambition for the series is for it to reach its 10th anniversary but it just won’t get there with me driving it forward – I’m just about spent here.

BUT, I’ve put my last reserves of (podcasting) energy into ensuring the series will at least continue into the immediate future by lining up a new producer. That new producer is PJ aka The Repeat Beat Poet and he’s already busy making plans for new episodes which will launch sometime around October 2020. I say ‘around’ October because in the light of recent global events it’s probably smart to be flexible about future plans.

PJ will be introducing my final episode as host and will use that brief space to explain his plans further and introduce the small team that will be helping him keeping this ship afloat. But in the meantime here’s a bit about PJ:

unnamed

“PJ produces and hosts the London spoken word events Pen-Ting and Boomerang which have enjoyed sold out residencies at The Poetry Café and Bush Theatre, and is an emcee with Hip Hop label and jam night Imaginary Millions, and is the creator of the Hip Hop/Spoken Word radio show #TheRepeatBeatBroadcast

He has been commissioned by Amnesty International, selected for the BBC 1Xtra Words First and the Roundhouse Poetry Collective programmes, and was nominated for a Jerwood Compton Poetry Fellowship in 2019. He is published by Bad Betty Press, Magma Poetry, and #PoetryOnThePicketLine.”

PJ has already played a decent role in the shaping of Lunar  and you can check out those appearances here:

Interviewing Ross Monaghan in ep.93 / interviewing Thomas Owoo in ep.84 /  appearing as a guest, himself, in ep.80.

In the short term the only change will be that PJ aims to return to more regular episodes, most likely following our former monthly schedule. This means as listeners you’ll be getting a much more steady stream of poetry to feast on. Something I simply haven’t had the capacity for over the last 18 months.

However, I will be stepping away completely (except to offer help and advice when asked) and PJ will be free to take the series in any direction he wants. PJ will not only bring some much needed energy to the role but it’s about time this podcast had a new set of eyes and ears. I hope I’ve done an ok job of bringing you an interesting variety of poets and performers but one person’s perspective will ultimately always be too narrow.

The support that you’ve all shown as listeners over the last 5 years has frankly been overwhelming. I think this podcast has changed my life (for the better) so thank you all. The only thing I’ll ask is that you show PJ the same level of support you have for me.

David. xx

Ep.124 – Caleb Klaces & Jess Chandler

ep124 Caleb Klaces

Episode 124 is now available to download wherever you get your podcasts. In this episode I chat to Caleb Klaces and publisher Jess Chandler. This will be the penultimate episode of the series that I produce and I will stepping down as producer after episode 125.

The new producers, headed by Peter DeGraft Johnson a.k.a The Repeat Beat Poet, will begin producing new episodes later this year. More information to follow.

Below is a transcript of the latest episode, minus the readings by Caleb. For a full transcript please download it here.

 

TRANSCRIPT:

Host: David Turner – DT

Guest: Caleb Klaces – CK

            Jess Chandler – JC

 

Intro:

DT:      Hello, welcome to episode 124 of Lunar Poetry Podcasts. My name is David Turner. How are you lot doing? In a break from the norm I am joined for this intro by PJ a.k.a The Repeat Beat Poet. Hello PJ.

PJ:       Hello David.

DT:      In accordance to social distancing measures, we are recording this intro via video call. So it will be a little bit glitchy, I’m gonna fade PJ in and out as we’re chatting just in case there are any hums from the Internet. The reason for PJ’s presence is that this episode is to be the penultimate episode which I produce and will in fact be the last that I introduce. I’ll be standing down completely after episode 125 and what will be just about six years of my life. PJ, I think the best thing is for you to introduce yourself a little bit.

PJ:        Thanks for having me on like this. By way of introduction, I’ll just say that I’m 25 years of age, at time of recording and I’ve been a poet for five-and-a-half of those years. Almost about the same amount of time that you’ve been producing Lunar Poetry podcasts. For the full amount of time that I’ve been a poet I’ve been listening to these Lunar Poetry Podcasts, so it’s informed a lot the way I approach thinking about my own work.

Broadly, I’m a poet, a DJ, a Hip-Hop artist, I’ve spent the last three years on a kind of permanent tour and gigging at a high rate to help me think about my performance style. I’ve always loved podcasting and journalism, I was a film writer and journalist for around three or four years as well… so what I’m hoping to do with the Lunar Poetry Podcasts in the short term is just, more of the same really.

I love how clear this podcast is and how much freedom it gives poets to talk about their work, so this is the sort of thing I’ll be doing when I take over the good ship Lunar Poetry Podcasts.

DT:      As regular listeners may know, PJ has already been part of the series, both reading his own work in some of the special episodes, he has appeared as a guest and he has also interviewed Thomas Owoo at the time we were able to have guest hosts.

Had I done my research properly and prepared for this intro I would have found and listed all the episode numbers that you’ve been part of, PJ, but I will put them in the episode description. So if anyone wants to check out your time as guest or guest host they can just click those links.

I think the important thing to say at the moment is that there won’t be any massive changes immediately when PJ takes over but I will be stepping away completely and as time goes by PJ will be free to develop the series in any direction that he wants.

Just a rough timescale, it’s gonna be around October-time that you start producing your own episodes and this will be around the sixth anniversary of the series.

PJ:       Yeah, October is when we planned to move back to a more regular schedule. We had this planned before the global pandemic and so we’re making some readjustments to the pre-production but to you, the listener, the end result should be the standard and high quality that you’ve come to expect from such an esteemed podcast.

DT:      I don’t want to drag this podcast out too much because I know people are here for our guest and the new episode, so I just wanted to introduce PJ so that you knew his voice and when he popped up in what will be my last episode, the next episode number 125, it wasn’t some massive surprise. I hadn’t just walked out on all of you.

To today’s episode, back on the 7 February, I met up with Caleb Klaces and publisher Jess Chandler to talk about Caleb’s latest book, Fatherhood. This conversation was recorded before Covid-19 hit Britain so is refreshingly free from any virus chat.

Fatherhood was published by Prototype Publishing in 2019 and was longlisted for the Republic of Consciousness Prize and is Caleb’s debut novel. After reading Fatherhood I became a little bit obsessed with the book and its combination of fragmentary prose and sequences of verse. It took some planning but I was very excited that Caleb and Jess could make it over to Walthamstow to chat with me.

As always you can download a full transcript of this conversation over at www.lunarpoetrypodcasts.com and you can follow me @Silent_Tongue on Twitter. There will inevitably be some new social media accounts to follow once I step away from producing the series but I’ll let PJ tell you about that in the next episode. That sounds alright doesn’t it PJ?

PJ:       Yeah. It sounds good.

DT:      Anyway, that’s all from me and PJ, but I’ll be back at the end of the episode with some more information. One last thing, if you enjoy this episode then do tell people about it. In light of recent events it’s become even more difficult to reach new audiences so do shout, or even whisper about us. And lend PJ as much support as you have to me over these years.

Here’s Caleb.

Conversation:

[We are unable to reproduce this reading here. Please download the full transcript here for the full reading.]

DT:      Thank you very much. For the listeners, I’m no doubt repeating what I just said to you in the introduction, which I am going to record in two months’ time from now, but in a break from the form of the last few episodes, I am joined by two guests today, rather than one. I always say it’s because they do a better job, but it’s more that I don’t have to do the research. I’m going to let my two guests introduce themselves. We’ll begin with Jess.

JC:       Hello. Thanks very much for having us. I’m Jess Chandler and I run Prototype, publishers of Caleb’s novel Fatherhood.

CK:       Hello, I am Caleb Klaces and I am the author of Fatherhood, which Jess has published.

DT:      We’re mainly meeting because I bumped into Jess at, which book fair was it? Was it the Small Publishers Book Fair?

JC:       I think it was the Small Publishers Fair.

DT:      I asked Jess what she would recommend from the table. Without putting you in an embarrassing situation to your other authors, you did slide Fatherhood towards me first. It’s because we’d been talking about my own writing and you thought it might interest me. Not only did it interest me, it really blew me away. It’s one of the best books I’ve read in a really long time.

More than that, it hasn’t left me since the first time I read it. It’s really been haunting me in a lot of ways and I was really desperate to talk to Caleb about the book, but I thought it would be really nice to bring on a publisher and chat about how these types of books get put together and why. I’d like to begin by asking you, Jess, how do you sell this book to people? What description do you give it?

JC:       Good question. It is a novel, although its form is experimental in many ways. I haven’t had any problem in simply selling it as a novel with a narrative, with many of the traditional, novelist elements about it, even though it combines prose and poetry. When I was sent the manuscript, I had been thinking about poets who had been writing novels and that was one of the things which drew me to it, because apart from just the fact that it does have sections of poetry, I think it’s written with a kind of ear and care for language and rhythm of a poet, which Caleb is as well.

So I think that’s something I would emphasise when describing it to people as well, that it’s a kind of hybrid of forms. I had also just become a mother when I read it and I think that obviously meant it resonated with me in lots of ways, although I think I’m also careful to tell people that it’s not just a novel that will feel relevant to people with children, because it’s about so many other things.

DT:      I don’t have any children. I enjoyed it, even though my wife and I have decided we are going to do the horrible thing and not give any grandchildren to our parents. Caleb, that description from Jess, how does that sit with how you feel about the book?

CK:       I’m very grateful to Jess for taking that responsibility away from me because I wouldn’t necessarily know how to describe it. The nice thing about the novel as a form is that it’s capacious enough to withstand quite a lot of internal difference and still qualify as that thing. Is there anything I would add? No.

DT:      I was thinking about that today, as I was sanding a table-top, because I’ve been at work and doing my normal routine, but I had a few jobs which allowed me to think about what we might talk about today, which is not always afforded to me when I’m at work. We briefly touched on Sanatorium, which is the new book by Abi Palmer, who regular listeners to the podcast will know.

She’s been a guest a few times. I’m looking at the cover of the book now and the tagline is ‘memoir, creative non-fiction’. I suppose if I was trying to describe Fatherhood to people, I’d be tempted to use the word memoir, but that loads it with this idea of it being truthful in a way I don’t feel is perhaps that important to you.

CK:       No, it’s not, and I think that’s partly where coming from poetry, and initially large sections of it were written as stand-alone poems with their own integrity, and I think it was probably written with the sense that comes from poetry where perhaps that question of fidelity to reality, is it fiction or non-fiction, doesn’t quite pertain in the same way.

So then when it evolved into becoming a novel, or when that seemed necessary, to write it through and give it the momentum of prose, those kinds of assumptions then carried over for me. I think maybe there’s a distinction, I was reading something recently which made a distinction between the personal and the intimate, and I think it’s a very intimate book, but it’s not necessarily personal. I kind of know what’s fictional and what isn’t, but it’s not that important to me.

DT:      That’s a really brilliant way of framing it, the difference between the personal and the intimate. I read Fatherhood just after finishing my own book and talking to Abi about Sanatorium. We were both trying to find ways of explaining to people that whilst aspects of our own writing seemed very truthful, the realness or the truthfulness of it is not what we’re aiming for.

I think both myself and Abi are both aiming for intimacy in our writing. Fatherhood is intimate from cover to cover. I really want to know if it’s the truth or not. Before we go too far down that, how did this manuscript fall into your lap? Was it a submission?

JC:       It was actually sent to me by Caleb’s agent at the time, but I kind of knew of it because I’d published Caleb’s poetry in the Test Centre, which is the former incarnation of Prototype in our magazine. Caleb had sent us what essentially was the early manuscript, which was a poetry collection.

To my part shame but probably for the right reason, I think now proven, we decided not to publish it. It hadn’t quite found its voice and form yet, which probably Caleb came to agree with. I absolutely loved it, there was no doubt I wanted to publish it and I was so excited when Caleb said yes.

It came to me as a prose manuscript, although I knew its history, which made it even more interesting, I think, as somebody who publishes both poetry and prose.

DT:      I don’t normally write many notes. I try not to because I find it – I was going to say ‘ruins my interview’ style, but I don’t really have an interview style – but I feel like once I’ve written a note, I should read it. There was one thing that kept coming over, and this is definitely a question for both of you, how relevant was it that such an overwhelming series of subjects was confined in such a small book?

Was that a consideration? The stuff that happened was so massive, but it was really interesting it happened in such a neat and confined object,

CK:       I think maybe I’ve got two answers to that question, one of which is to do with craft and one is much more psychological. I became aware, at the point when I realised it needed to be a prose novel, that there were all these parts which were pulling in different directions and I realised that I needed something that was in a way as simple as possible to hold it together, because it was on the verge of collapsing under its own, not weight exactly, but under the divergence of its parts.

So there was a need for something simple that would sustain the intensity, because the one thing I wanted was…I was interested in ‘what’s the highest resolution you can write something?’ Particularly this experience, which seemed so much about a different perception of time, or a new kind of intimacy, that I couldn’t quite accommodate.  Time.

Those kinds of questions then seemed… I seemed much more able to contain them in a very simple, fictional frame and then I could write that through. In terms of brevity, I think that idea of containment, which comes up a lot in psychoanalysis, how do you contain an experience and how can you provide a containing experience for an infant?

I think the book, to some extent, took that on for me, like it was a way of containing certain things. I’d never really thought the smallness might be a part of that.

JC:       I hadn’t thought of that either, but I suppose it is incredibly profound things, parenthood being one of them, but also big issues facing us all, climate change runs throughout, incredibly big things, but it’s also small in some ways, dealing with quite a specific moment and time and characters, so it doesn’t feel like it’s squashing things or that it’s too constricted, I think. That’s not to make it sound too small. There’s a smallness, a kind of privateness, a roundedness to it that suits that.

CK:       One of the things I was really aware of when writing this was this feeling of a world that had, being a father, become very small and very happily so. That’s quite literally, broken open, like a flood that breaks down the walls between the outside and the inside. So those were the things I was very interested in, what’s in the foreground? There was this feeling of there just being this almost all foreground until the background ruptures that.

DT:      I found it fascinating, that idea of bringing a child into the world, but also being fearful of the world around. So at the same time, the father in the book is trying to teach his child about the world around him, while also trying to completely protect it from the world around it. That conflict between these massive subjects.

I suppose because it does cover climate change and becoming a parent, both of which are enormous subjects, but are very, very much the personal experiences of the narrator. It’s not a selfish tale or a selfish individual, but it’s very much in the moment. I’ve seen my friends go through having young babies and they don’t seem to have much time for anything else other than making sure that this little person doesn’t come to any harm.

I found it fascinating, the work the lead character does on recording systems and how that really mechanical view of recording the data, without really having any emotional attachment to it until a flood almost destroys their whole home, is a really interesting, blinkered way of being very, very acutely aware of the facts without realising it’s coming for them until it’s too late.

JC:       The need for a feeling of control, whether or not it’s actual control, but ways of feeling you are able to measure and understand, that becomes so important when everything is slightly in chaos.

DT:      In typical fashion for Prototype, it is a beautiful book and it’s really nicely put together and looks fantastic. I suppose such a chaotic and fragmented story is contained really well. As you’re saying, Caleb, it could have gone off in so many directions and it feels like you’re constantly pulling it back as the author. I suppose it makes sense to work with a publisher who’s so neat and regimented.

JC:       And the simplicity, as you were saying.

DT:      We’ve spoken so much before, Jess, you and I, about books as objects and not just as reading material.

JC:       Which is weirdly relevant for the novel, not to give anything away. I suppose we can explain that notebooks, in particular, are very important in the novel and are something impermanent or things that can actually be lost.

DT:      We mentioned the floods. I keep wanting to say ‘you’, we’ve just established it isn’t necessarily you in the book, I should say the narrator of the book loses a book he’d been previously working on to the flood. I did have a note on that. I’m always wondering, I’m quite keen to shed myself of possessions every now and again.

I’m quite happy when I lose a notebook, it frees me up a lot. A question for both of you: how do you feel about lost work? A different question for you, Jess, because it might mean losing someone else’s work.

JC:       That responsibility might not be good.

DT:      I suppose the attachment to your own writing and how you move on from it.

JC:       It’s painful to read about. It feels devastating, as I’m sure it would if it were your work. It’s sort of generative as well.

DT:      Reading Fatherhood and reading about the flood, I didn’t have any feelings of ‘oh no, what if I lost my work?’ But I know how devastated my wife would be if she lost her writing and it really got to me, that’s what I mean about the intimacy, in the book there are elements outside of parenting that are very relevant to [me].

CK:       Yeah. That’s a really brilliant question and not something I’ve really thought about. That part of the story is largely true. I did lose… Or at least, there was a flood in which the only thing I cared about in the house, which was all of my notebooks going back to when I was five, were in drawers, which were flooded and I couldn’t look at them for like a year. I didn’t realise I was not looking at them until I realised ‘oh, why?’

Actually, a lot of this book was written in that kind of lacuna, written in the period between the flood happening and me looking at the notebooks again to see what might be retrieved from them. I don’t know what I feel about that, I genuinely don’t, but I think something happened, there might have been something liberating by that.

I think the other thing is the kind of metaphorical breakdown, that was also the moment when I was watching a child develop language. We’ve just been talking about this. There was a weird correspondence between losing a load of literal text and watching a child build something up. It’s something to cherish, but I also found it weirdly challenging.

I don’t quite know why. I think I felt a loss of her babyhood. There were all the things you gain from talking to someone, but also I felt like it was separating her from the world in some kind of spooky way that I now don’t care about, but at the time, it really mattered. I think all of those things were maybe mixed up.

JC:       Yeah, that discovery and development of language, suddenly you become aware of this understanding developing and that knowledge and a different way of viewing the world that is more real and open to pain. I don’t know, there’s something kind of scary about it.

DT:      I don’t know if this links, but if it doesn’t, I’m going to cut it out. I started writing again in my early 30s. I spent five weeks in a psychiatric hospital in South London and that is not the only time I’ve been in a hospital. It’s the most recent time and I started writing again. I was encouraged to keep diaries and notebooks. I have a box of those notebooks and they feel like they’ve been in a flood.

I’m wondering now, just to hear you talk about not necessarily wanting to approach them, but eventually you do. I wouldn’t mind if they were lost, but whilst they’re there in semi-permanence, and they are very real, but they’re in a strange state because of the way they were written, I’m now wondering whether that was why that part of the book remained with me, as well as other aspects of it.

I’ve spoken to a lot of writers, who have unfortunately lost notebooks or hard drives or computers or had their phone stolen or whatever and whilst it’s sad for them, and I can empathise, it doesn’t really bother me. But there was something about the flood.

CK:       One of the strange things about the flood, and I don’t know if this is quite relevant, is how much life it contains. You think of it as something that destroys human life, but it’s full of bacteria and slugs, and your house is full of creatures afterwards. I was very aware of these things growing mouldy and there was another kind of life that was coming out of this.

I was very struck by that at the time I had chosen to procreate and generate more life. The feeling of who gets to decide these things. It does seem quite arbitrary and of course, knowing the profound destruction that humans are causing, that made me feel very ambivalent about it. It stopped me from feeling too sorry for myself, you know what I mean?

DT:      Now would be a perfect time for a second reading.

CK:       OK. I’m going to read a new poem from a collection which Prototype will publish, I think, next year, which is really exciting.

DT:      I thought you meant you think as in at all. I thought you might get a live rejection.

JC:       Don’t worry, we knew about it.

DT:      ‘We appreciate your submission.’

CK:       Exactly! OK. It’s called;

[We are unable to reproduce this reading here. Please download the full transcript here for the full reading.]

DT:      Thank you very much. I will have to be quite strict with myself and ignore that and stick to Fatherhood, otherwise we’ll be here all afternoon. We didn’t cover it at the beginning, Jess, so maybe it would be good to explain to the listeners which strand of Prototype that will be published under and how it might be different.

CK:       Is that OK? Would you like me to read something else? I don’t want to knock things off course.

JC:       So Prototype publishes quite a range of different things. Fatherhood, the first book, was in the prose strand. I’ve called it ‘prose’ so as to keep it open, because I am open to things that aren’t so obviously classified as fiction. The next book we’re doing will be a poetry collection so that fits very neatly into the poetry strand.

We publish other things that are more interdisciplinary, that’s the best word I can think of for it really, but often collaborations with artists, things that are combining different art forms and would probably not find a home with more traditional publishers, where the definitions of genres are more defined.

This will be a poetry collection, which is really exciting, and it’s how I first knew Caleb’s work – as a poet. So it’s really great to be able to see and support both of those aspects of his writing.

DT:      I’m bringing my angry fist down on the poetry now.

CK:       I don’t Google myself, but I just saw on Good Reads, somebody had written a review of this which says: ‘Warning. Contains stretches of poetry.’ I thought that was so good. Like ‘watch out, guys.’

DT:      My next question could need that warning as well. I wanted to talk about the fragmentary nature of the book itself, how that developed in your own writing. I obviously want to bring Jess in on the conversation as well, but how did the book develop after you submitted the manuscript? What was the editing process?

JC:       The final manuscript? We didn’t do very much editing. Sometimes I think things benefit from my input or somebody’s external input, but it was very finished, I think maybe because Caleb had been working on this piece for a long time and it really had found its form.

I don’t think you should edit just because you feel that’s your role and therefore you should make changes because it makes you seem more engaged. The main things we discussed were to do with the format and how to best convey that into the physical form. Those are really nice discussions. A lot of things that would appear very boring to an outside observer, but like ‘should we indent this paragraph?’

DT:      I think you’ve got a captive audience, people who actually give a shit about all that.

JC:       Small decisions and many emails can…

DT:      Based on your response there, if we begin with Caleb, could you tell us how the book came together … sorry, I’m laughing about what we chatted about before we started recording… how the process of writing the book came together? Then we can talk about how you worked together, the form of the book and what the  final object is. So, go.

CK:       It really did start in July or August 2014, when my first daughter was born. I decided I was so overtaken with this experience, I should probably write something discrete to get it out the way so I wouldn’t just write about it all the time. Of course, that totally backfired. Both were something that felt vital to me as writing, but also felt like a practice that I was interested in seeing how it affected my life.

So parts of that were published in sympathetic journals. At a very early stage, it was useful to have my suspicions confirmed that wasn’t right and then it developed into a pretty full-blown poetry collection and then there was a point at which I realised it was not quite pulling all in the same direction. It had started to become prosier and prosier, but it didn’t have momentum, didn’t have something pulling it through and that was when it changed. I pulled it together in a summer.

DT:      What was the main aspect of the narrative that you thought was key to tying everything up?

CK:       I think there were these two fixed points. There was the birth and then there was the flood and it was writing through them and then beyond. It was the discovery I could do that and then that was quite quick.

DT:      It’s interesting to hear you now say the poetry collection initially wasn’t coherent enough and was pulling in too many directions, to then end up with a book that is still pulling in many directions. But it doesn’t feel like it’s disjointed in any way.

CK:       To me, when I was writing it, I wanted to get to a point, it’s that tension that’s interesting, like is it going to fall apart or is it going to carry on going? That was where it felt exciting to me.

DT:      So then how did the process work between the two of you?

JC:       It was quite a seamless process really. As the first book in this new series, series in that each book will follow certain aesthetic rules, they will all be different, but same the format, this simple cover with an illustration. This book helped us establish that format, which was nice, but it also meant we had quite a bit of freedom because nothing was yet set.

We had quite a bit of fun choosing an illustration. We found a great Norwegian illustrator called Marianne Arnesen, who had published some of her paintings in another book we did, and saw these illustrations that were on her website. They were weird and abstract and surreal. We tried a few out and chose this image which seemed to speak to a lot of things in the book, although it was something we had just found, it wasn’t made for the book.

Then it was just a case of working out how to typographically represent the different tones, because the narrative does move between bits of dialogue, bits of poetry, bits of almost stream of consciousness prose, where it’s long, unbroken passages. So we just wanted to make sure those would be visually represented so the readers see where these changes are. It was quite a nice creative process.

DT:      I quite enjoyed the use of indentation and italics in patches throughout the book, which then linked you into longer passages of what seemed more like stream of consciousness or, if we say poetry, just for this conversation. However you want to define it, it’s quite filmic, cinematic in the use of sound, where you give key signatures to characters and you don’t realise at the time you’re reading it or hearing it, but later on, once those voices become more prominent, you’re already used to this, that it’s not a sudden attack in change of style.

JC:       Great that that worked. Perfect.

CK:       What a beautiful description. Really interesting that was the extended period of the process, really nitty-gritty and tying up. I thought I had consistent ways… because the typography is really important as a way of navigating and signalling different kinds of prose. I knew it was going to be difficult, moving in and out of these different tones and moods and ways of reading, so I’m really pleased if that’s the case, that it feels you’ve got these footholds.

DT:      I’m not saying other publishers or authors aren’t aware of this and I know there are different constraints in terms of budget, but I think too often it’s forgotten how much trust you’re putting in a reader to hold with you when you’re trying to do something that doesn’t just follow the standard form of a book.

If you’re asking someone to jump between three different voices, you perhaps need to give a handle, especially if you want people to engage immediately.

JC:       You really miss something if you don’t give it that attention. I should also acknowledge the really brilliant designers and typographers I’ve worked with for many years. They were very much involved in this process and it’s really great to be able to leave certain decisions to them, which we did. They have an eye for what works visually.

Having that third voice is really something that adds a lot to the books and perhaps it’s a luxury in the process that not every publisher goes into. Often, you have a standard typesetting process, but this is very much a design process, the interior is designed as well as the cover. I think for a novel like this, where it really is important, you’d really be missing something if you just pasted it all in.

DT:      So who is the second author in the series?

JC:       The next book coming out just before you’ll hear this podcast is a collection of short stories by Jen Calleja, whose poetry collection I published about four years ago. She’s also a translator, poet, it’s a really great collection. It’s called I’m Afraid That’s All We’ve Got Time For. Caleb was saying earlier, I showed him a copy, it’s kind of weird looking at the two side by side because they are the same, but different.

DT:      What do you see as the theme through the series? Or is it still in development?

JC:       In terms of content, there isn’t particularly a theme. Intentionally, I want it to be open. I suppose the privilege of being a publisher on your own is you can really choose things you love and believe in. I think often they will be works that are doing something unconventional, which some publishers might find more risky, but my hope and conviction is that by continuing to take those risks, it becomes established and people trust your choices, therefore the risk becomes less, even though they might be doing something daring in their form.

DT:      For the listeners’ benefit, Caleb has to catch a train, so I’m conscious of not running on for too long. We might wrap up there, other than to say, does your new poetry collection have a title yet?

CK:       It’s called My Little Finger.

DT:      I don’t know whether I will ever manage to do this fully, but I will put links in the episode description to things we’ve been chatting about. If I say that now, remind me to put it in the outro, or I will be kicking myself when I forget to put it in. Thank you so much for making the effort to come to Walthamstow to chat.

CK and JC:       Thank you.

DT:      You’re really welcome. I’ve been wanting to chat to Jess for a long time about Prototype and then this book came along and it was great to be able to wrap the two things into one. I hope it’s given people some sort of insight into how books go together, but then you’ll have to learn about your own book, won’t you? Because they’re all different and none of this will be relevant to your book!

We’ve just wasted an hour, but it’s fine. Nothing’s a waste, is it? I wrote a note in really big letters: ‘How do we let go?’

CK:       I’ve seen that question written there and I’ve been trying to think about it. What it makes you think is, one of the things that still I don’t quite understand about this book is the anger in it. I knew it had to be there, I knew it had to be where it was and I knew it had to kind of explode. I still don’t quite understand about that, but that seems to me to be about letting something go.

There was something withheld, and held on to, that sort of needed to come out for me. I also think for me, in my real life, but also for the shape of the book and for the narrator in the book. I think that’s partly about letting go of certain expectations that you live with, particularly because I am a man, so I perhaps know better about certain ideas about what it is to be a man.

When those ideas come into conflict with a very, very confused sense of what care might look like for a man, I think there was a kind of ‘where does this go?’ There was a collision that had to find some safer outlet, right? I don’t know how we let go, except that in this novel, I think there is a large letting go, somewhere in the middle.

DT:      I think there are aspects of the fear and anger of not having control over things and the reconciliation of recognising you won’t ever have that and then perhaps, you have to let go. There were other things I wanted to talk about first, but yeah, the anger in the book is fascinating. I would say there were high levels of frustration, it’s not raging, but you can see there’s an anger.

I don’t want to use the word bitterness either, but there is a combination of all those things and it struck me as though it was a losing of control or a lack of control that was the root of that. That was my reading. That might reflect more what’s going on in my head.

 CK:       This just occurs to me, but it’s the only point in the book where it becomes metrical. The verse is not iambic pentameter, but it’s essentially iambic. There’s a point at which it’s highly structured, metrical verse, exactly what you say, where there’s a kind of loss of control and so this acts as some net for that.

DT:      I’m glad we got around to that as it was bothering me. OK, we really should wrap up. We’ll take a third and final reading, but before we do that, we’ll say goodbye, because we’ll fade straight out. Thank you so much, it’s been really fascinating.

JC:       Thank you so much.

CK:       I’m going to read a passage from towards the end of the book when the father and his daughter are on a train and the only other people on the train are a blind woman and her dog.

[We are unable to reproduce this reading here. Please download the full transcript here for the full reading.]

Outro:

Hello, you hung around to the end… grab a Jaffa Cake. As you will have guessed by now that was Caleb Klaces and Jess Chandler. If you’d like to buy a copy of Fatherhood then the best place to do that is over at the Prototype website, simply follow the link in the episode description. There is currently free UK postage included on that title until 12 April so just do it already.

While you’re over at their website you might also check out their latest prose offering, I’m Afraid That’s All We’ve Got Time For, a collection of short stories by Jen Calleja. And as mentioned in the conversation, Caleb’s  second poetry collection My Little Finger will be out with Prototype in 2021.

As mentioned in episode 123 my debut poetry collection Contained was published by Hesterglock Press in February and its release into the world was a little blighted – first by a pretty destructive storm which meant I had to cancel my Cardiff book launch and then the Bristol book launch had to be cancelled because of the global pandemic. I did, though, manage to get at least one launch event in before all this trouble started so I fared better than some.

If you’d like to support me and my wonderful publisher, Hesterglock Press then follow the link in the episode description to buy a physical copy of the book for £10 plus packing and postage or just £4 for a digital copy in the form of a pdf. The book is also available as a series of recordings over on my personal SoundCloud page.

Another writer whose book launch was affected by recent events is Abi Palmer, mentioned a bit during this episode. Her book, Sanatorium from Penned In The Margins is just great and if you like the sound of Fatherhood then you’ll love Sanatorium. This is the blurb –

A young woman spends a month taking the waters at a thermal water-based rehabilitation facility in Budapest. On her return to London, she attempts to continue her recovery using an inflatable blue bathtub. The tub becomes a metaphor for the intrusion of disability: a trip-hazard, sat in the middle of an unsuitable room, slowly deflating & in constant danger of falling apart.

Moving between these contrasting spaces – bathtub to thermal pool, land to water, day to night – Sanatorium braids fragments of reportage, poetry, and found and posed image, to form an immersive exploration of the female disabled body. In the space between gravity and weightlessness, waking life and out-of-body experience, readers are invited to question if water is a means for rehabilitation, or if their narrator is simply dissolving…

That’s probably enough from me now. Please do welcome PJ when he introduces the next episode and show him lots of support when he begins releasing his own episodes later this year. My dream for this series is to see it reach its tenth anniversary but all I’ve got in me is to drop it off at the doorstep of its sixth. The series needs a new shot of energy and I think PJ is just the person to provide that. I’m sure he’ll do a great job of guiding you through a world of fascinating and innovative poetry.

Much love. Stay home and stay safe.

End of transcript.

Some exciting funding news!

IMG_1005

So… it’s taken a few attempts but I am absolutely delighted to be able to tell you that we have received funding from Arts Council England to transcribe and archive the outstanding 30-odd episodes.

Over the course of the next six months Lizzy and I will be working with our regular transcript technician, Christabel Smith to process 30 episodes that we were unable to work through with the first round of funding in 2018. This means that by this summer all Lunar episodes will be accompanied by a transcript – well, all except the few made up of only open-mic events or single poem readings.

Unfortunately, tracking down all of these poets and obtaining permission to reproduce their work and original poems for formatting purposes is sadly beyond our resources.

We now collect all of this information as a matter of course now so hopefully this kind of oversight is now a thing of the past.

The second part of the project will see us process and log 35 episodes prior to archiving within the Sounds Department at the British Library. This is an attempt to secure the archive of episodes against any unforeseen events, such as SoundCloud going out of business. This archiving work will ensure that should anything happen to our RSS feed all episodes will still be available within the British Library archive.

Here’s to the future!

David xx

Episode 123 – Vanessa Onwuemezi

LPP 123 Vanessa Onwuemezi

Episode 123 is now available to download/play wherever you get your podcasts and as always here on SoundCloud. For this episode I’m  in Walthamstow, east London talking to Vanessa Onwuemezi. We discuss how Vanessa came to be pursuing a life in writing and how she judges the quality of her writing.

This episode includes a small tribute to friend and poet Mishi ‘Dulwich Hamlet’ Morath who sadly passed away before Christmas.

A transcript (minus readings) is posted below. If you’d like a full transcript, download that here.

Guest: Vanessa Onwuemezi – VO

Host: David Turner – DT

Feature: Mishi Morath – MM

 

 Intro:

 

 

DT:      Hello, welcome to episode 123 of Lunar Poetry Podcasts, I’m David Turner. You alright? I was going to try and get this episode out before Christmas last year but it felt like it would be too much of a rush so I waited until now to do it properly, as it were.

The reason I was busy is that I was putting the finishing touches to my first collection of poetry which is out with Hesterglock Press. The book is a collection of prose poetry, visual art and essay style writing with the whole book being complimented by a series of recordings and experimental sounds and noises, ‘bleeps’ and ‘bloops’. It’s out officially the 8 February but Hesterglock have agreed to make it available a little earlier so if you’d like to grab yourself a copy for £10 plus packing and postage then follow the link in the episode description.

[The sound of a cassette tape rewinding] Hello, this is ‘meta-David’ interrupting the other David. I completely forgot to mention in this bit that if £10 plus packing and postage is beyond your reach financially then there is a PDF version of the book available for only £4. So, that’s a one-off-cost of £4 and you can read that PDF version on, I believe, any electronic device. Which is an option, right? I’ve just spliced this recording in because I just couldn’t face rerecording the intro. Back to the intro… [Cassette tape loading and playing.]

The recordings are available for free on my SoundCloud page – link also in the episode description.

I’ve got three UK book launches coming up if you’d like to come and say hello. The first is Saturday 8th February at Ye Olde Rose and Crown in Walthamstow, next it’s Cardiff Saturday 15th February at a fantastic new event called CRASH at the Flute and Tankard pub. Finally, a Bristol launch at HOURS Gallery Space and that’s Saturday 14th March. Links to all of these events in the episode description, of course. Of course.

I’m going to be joined by some fantastic poets at these events including today’s guest Vanessa Onwuemezi who will be appearing at the London event. I met up with Vanessa in Walthamstow, east London where we both live to discuss how she found herself to be pursuing a life of writing. You know, like all my other guests.  I’ve always really enjoyed chatting to writers at the beginning of their careers as they tend to curtail my inclination toward fairly heavy doses of cynicism about this industry. Which Vanessa does brilliantly with her optimism. Bloody optimism!

As always this episode is fully transcribed, click the link in the description or head over to lunarpoetrypodcasts.com to download the transcript. You’ll also find, on the website, a list of 80 poetry podcasts produced in the UK and Ireland to fill your time between my now increasingly infrequent episodes. This list, of course, includes our companion podcast a poem a week produced by my wife Lizzy Turner and features some really brilliant poetry readings every weekend. That alone is up to its 81st episode.

I’ll be back at the end of the episode with some exciting funding news and with a few words for poet and my friend Mishi Morath who sadly passed away before Christmas. It just doesn’t feel right talking about that at the beginning.

Anyway, here’s Vanessa.

 

Conversation:

 

VO:

 For this reading please download the full transcript.

 DT:      Thank you very much, Vanessa. Welcome to the podcast. It’s weird saying hello when we’ve already said hello and we’ve been chatting a little while when NFL was on. This seems like a good place to start. Why don’t you tell the listeners how you got into writing?

VO:      I should start by saying I studied Biology at university, which is something we spoke about before.

 DT:      I didn’t want to make it too much of a leading question, but it’s difficult when you know people and you’re coming on to do a professional job.

 VO:      It’s like, what did I tell you? Should I make it known?

 DT:      It’s definitely a good place to start, that you don’t necessarily have a background in writing.

 VO:      Yes, a literary background. I suppose it’s good to start there because how I came to writing, involves a kind of U-turn. It’s not really a U-turn, but it’s the best way to put it. I studied Biology and really enjoyed doing that, but during my degree, I already knew I wouldn’t be making a career out of it. Looking back, I think I could have studied other things as well. Languages, I really liked, or History, but Biology seemed the more sensible of the three at the time and I wasn’t really sure what I wanted to do with my life, so I did that and I don’t regret that.

I did a Masters in a similar kind of subject, but it kind of moved on from Biology. It was Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, basically a bit more of a philosophical take on what

they call the hard problem, which is consciousness, the mind, and that kind of thing. It felt quite a natural step for me. I was definitely much more interested in the less tangible questions and I think a lot of writers are really.

So in some sense, I was already set up to be a writer or an artist. I think deep down, that’s what I really wanted to do. Nobody in my family was or is an artist or writer, so I think if it’s not close to you or you haven’t seen it done, it’s much more of a wobbly career path as well. There’s no set way to go about it necessarily, if you haven’t seen it done before.

 DT:      You’re just making it up as you go along.

 VO:      Yeah, definitely. I think a big part of getting into writing was realising that’s what I needed to do, that stepping off a more certain path. I considered Medicine. Before I completely gave up any ideas around that, I considered becoming a doctor, did a bit of work experience in hospital. It was my friend’s dad who was the consultant who helped me get this work experience and I was in a clinic with him, seeing patients who had kidney problems.

He left the room for a second and I was with this guy, this older man. He said to me: ‘Oh, so you want to be a doctor, that’s great.’ I said: ‘Yeah’, being polite and he said: ‘You know, because if you want to do something, you should just do it.’ Then he said: ‘If you really want to do it, it’s not hard.’ At that point, I was like: ‘OK, I’m not doing Medicine.’ I think at that point, I moved to France, actually.

 DT:      It’s strange that for some people, what would seem by far the hardest option is, in a lot of ways, the easy option. The path of least resistance is still a difficult path to follow, but had you gone into Medicine, you wouldn’t necessarily have had questions about how you get to your goal. Was there any resistance around you about wanting to be a writer?

 VO:      Most of the resistance comes from yourself and I think family can be difficult for some people. It wasn’t for me. My parents have always been quietly supportive. They’ve never been like ‘yeah, do this’ and they’ve never said ‘no, I don’t think you should do that.’ They’ve always just quietly supported me, which I’ve always been grateful for, because basically, they’ve left me to figure things out on my own without interfering very much.

 DT:      What you said rings true for a lot of writers I’ve spoken to in the podcast, in this imagined resistance against becoming a writer or pursuing a creative path is often due to not knowing how to get there. It seems an impossible dream.

 VO:      Yeah, definitely, especially when you’re very focused on it as a goal. I think that can be a barrier when you’re focused on having the published book, from a position where you’ve not written a sentence or you’ve written a couple of things and don’t really know where to go with it. You’re alone, thinking ‘I don’t know what to do with my life’. All of that can seem insurmountable, but then you start to realise that you then just have to do the next thing.

I worked at a theatre and the guy who ran the theatre, David Land, we had a conversation and he said ‘just do the next thing, don’t worry, you don’t have to have your life planned out.’ Once I started to trust that, it does ring true. You just do the next step. I’m still not published so if I were waiting for that, if that were my goal, and that was the only thing that I could measure my success against, I would constantly be on the back foot and the last 10 years would have been torture for me.

 DT:      That’s probably something we’ll come to later. That’s something I’m asking myself constantly: how do you gauge your own success, especially if there isn’t a profession to exist within? If you’re not published, that’s many people’s view of what being a professional writer is. What are you doing?, basically. That doesn’t mean you’re not doing anything, but you have to reconcile it in yourself as to what your motivations are.

 VO:      Definitely and what your view of success is, I suppose. I don’t have an explicit internal yardstick for success. I think what helped me was to realise that the goal was to write. The goal isn’t to be published. My goal is to write and be a good writer, basically, and focusing on that. That’s because I really like writing and it comes quite naturally to me. Not to say I never worry about what I’m going to do with myself or how I’m going to make a living, all those things are a really important part of it.

Going back to when we were talking about your own resistance and what barriers there are, especially with the arts, making a living, is one of them. I started this in my 20s and I don’t have any dependants, I’m pretty much a free agent, so to an extent, I can worry less about that aspect of it. It is a very material, as well as a psychological barrier, to even starting.

 DT:      If we go back to something you said there about your goal being to write and write well, how do you judge what you think is good? What mechanisms do you use if you’re not at the stage where you’re getting published and getting feedback from editors through the process of putting out a book and reviews and all the bullshit that comes after that? What are your current methods to gauge whether something is good?

 VO:      I workshop nearly every week with a group of friends I met when I did a creative writing MA, so I think that is my most immediate gauge. I think through practice, you get to know when something is… Obviously you think everything is rubbish on some level, but I think I have a good idea of knowing when something is messy or where something needs work and again, there is an internal gauge. If you’re happy with something and it’s said what you needed to say, then that is really when you can stop writing, I suppose.

 DT:      Do you have a constant set of parameters for quality when you’re writing or do they fluctuate from piece to piece?

 VO:      That’s a good question.

 DT:      I suppose I’m thinking more about what your process is as a writer and whether you shift style.

 VO:      Yeah. Until recently, I did. I still am learning to write, but when I was first starting, my style would really vary depending on what I’d read recently and what I’d read that I really liked. So I read [Thomas] Pynchon and all of a sudden, I was writing these really long, tumbling sentences. I read Denis Johnson and then my style changed, but I seem to have settled into something, at least for the moment, and I suppose the parameters are the same for each.

In a way I couldn’t really articulate what they were. I think you just know when a sentence is… I think rhythm is definitely very important for me. I tend not to be satisfied if the rhythm of the sentence I feel is not working or the way the rhythm of the piece works together.

 DT:      Is that a rhythm in your spoken voice or more internal? Do you try to imagine how a reader might read it?

VO:      Yeah, I read it out loud. I read everything out loud generally, usually when I start, I read the whole thing out loud. Often, I will know the rhythm of the sentence before the words and usually, I try and find the words. I know what the gist of the sentence will be and I might try and find the words to fit that rhythm, I think that’s a bit of an obsession. I guess that is a constant parameter.

DT:      We drifted very nicely away from my original, very banal question, but you touched upon the creative writing course you took, so if we jump back to how you got into writing. You got as far as you deciding not to study Medicine. So between there and the creative writing course, what happened to get to that point?

VO:      What happened? Actually, I was working at the time at a theatre. Somebody started in my team who was doing the creative writing course at Birkbeck, basically. This was about five years ago now, four years ago, and I had been writing a bit. I’d written a short story at that point, I think, and some poetry and she was really raving about it. I went to a party and met one of the tutors on the course and chatted with her a bit and we ended up going for a coffee.

That’s, in a backwards way, how I ended up applying. I sent her the story after that. She basically said ‘yeah, if you were to apply, you’d probably have a place’, so that’s how it happened. I didn’t really give it too much thought. I didn’t consider applying anywhere else either. I was just ‘yeah, this sounds all right’.

DT:      What was the focus of the course? Was it general creative writing or did it lean towards poetry or prose?

VO:      It was workshop based, so you’d workshop every week  and it was based around the short story, at least for the first year. I think there were about 30 people in a year, so around 10 people in each workshop and I think two or three people would go every week, so you’d send the story on the Sunday before. On the Wednesday, you’d show up and everyone would rip it to pieces.

DT:      How was that the first time?

VO:      I remember being really nervous. As everyone does, you suddenly have a weird view on your piece. It makes you look at it differently when you know it’s being read. As soon as you email it away and you know it’s being read by a couple of people, you start to reconsider what the hell you’re doing.

DT:      How much did it affect your writing process, knowing everything was going to be read?

VO:      I don’t know, really. Maybe not enough. I still left it to the last minute. Generally, the way I dealt with it, I would send it when I was just a bit fed up. I’d leave it to the last minute, then write all week and weekend until I was fed up, then send it off. In a way, it was a defence because I was so tired of it, I was happy to see it go, rather than terrified to know what people thought of it.

That was the way I dealt with it and actually, in the workshops, people were always very kind and supportive. It wasn’t, for me at least, a bad experience at all. It was a very good one, I think.

DT:      It’s interesting you talk about the defensive aspect of choosing to deal with deadlines in that way. I haven’t done a writing course like that, but I’ve been part of writing groups. I didn’t start sharing any work until I was in my early to mid-30s and it’s hard at that point, when you’re supposedly a ‘proper grown-up’, to suddenly start baring yourself in front of people and not get really defensive when people comment on your work.

I did the same thing, I would just bash stuff out, send it and go ‘if they don’t like it, it’s because it was rushed’. I know a lot of writers who swear by not ever joining any writing group, so you don’t need peer feedback, that’s their view. I’m a strong believer that if you’re going to go through the anxiety of doing it, you should do it properly and not half…I’m caught between saying half-heartedly and half-arsedly. Then just send stuff off and have an ‘easy out’, where you say that wasn’t really a considered piece, if they don’t like it, it’s to be expected.

Did you have to fight against that to get the most out of the course?

VO:      You mean fight against my defensive urges? No, I think I did sort myself out eventually. It really just depended on what else was going on in my life. It was at Birkbeck, so it was in the evenings. Everyone worked so everyone was on a similar page. You couldn’t always give all your time to it. I think I took reading other people’s work much more seriously, I gave much more time and attention and care to that.

Actually, I think after the first few workshops, some of the feedback was really good and helpful. I think when you realise how it can help, you want to send in a story you’ve actually worked on. You don’t want the things they’re picking up merely that you haven’t spent enough time on it. That’s not how you’re going to be a better writer. So I think I quickly realised actually, if I want to get the most out of the workshop, I should spend time on it so they can pick holes in it.

DT:      Similarly, I think the reason I enjoyed any of the writing groups I’ve been part of is because it made me read in a way to give feedback, so I was much more considered. It was the first time I’d ever read in that way.

VO:      It was the same for me.

DT:      Having not studied academically, I’d never had to read with a view to remembering anything. When my wife Lizzy and I lived in Bristol, we started a writing group. I very rarely shared any work with the group, but I kept going to run the group, just to read people’s work, because it informed a lot, as to how I would interview people on the podcast. It just trains your mind to take things in a bit faster. This may be something that a lot of people who have studied take for granted because they may have learnt that at an early age, but I never needed to. It was quite a new skill for me to have to pick up.

VO:      That’s interesting. Also, Biology, I did read a lot, but as you say, you read in a different way when you’re critiquing someone’s work, especially if it’s creative work. There are certain parts of it, like being in the workshop scenario, giving feedback, speaking in front of people and things like that, it’s something that if you’ve done a degree, you will have done before and for a lot of people, that’s more than half the battle.

I’m not that worried about speaking in front of a group of people generally. It seems like such a distant memory now, but I do remember feeling a bit out of my depth. I hadn’t really read that much. A lot of people were really, really well read. They were all different ages, so some people had just had more life to read books in. My academic experience had been really scientific and it is just a different way of thinking about things.

Now I’ve realised that I did really have to learn how to participate in a workshop setting and learn how to critique things. Now when I read something and there’s a comma out of place or I think ‘actually, this might have done better if they’d put that here’ or something like that, I forget or take for granted that’s something I really had to learn. I guess speaking about barriers into writing, that could be one that could put a lot of people off doing a creative writing course.

DT:      Definitely. I think it goes for all skills in life. In the furniture workshop I’m a maker in, I have to keep reminding a lot of the senior makers to not be too hard on some of the younger people. It’s easy to forget how you don’t know anything and people need to be allowed a space. I’ve never been part of a workshop where it’s been felt people can’t make mistakes, but you don’t know that until you’re in there and I think this is one of the barriers we’re talking about. It’s the unknown.

It’s like you’re saying, perhaps had you had a writer to talk to in your late teens, early 20s, when you were first thinking about going down that path, you could have at least sounded someone out. I had exactly the same. This is not about me, but I think it’s important to remember, neither of us are particularly old, but I find, especially when you get familiar with a skill, that it’s easy to forget what it was like not knowing anything about that skill and not being able to talk about it.

VO:      Definitely and it’s good to refresh yourself, I suppose, and good to have conversations like this. It’s also good to try and keep learning new things or keep doing things which make you realise you’re a lay person in many respects, many specialisms. When I started my newest job, I was sitting in a lot of production meetings, people talking about theatre production and there were so many words thrown around, I’d be like ‘what? What is that?’

You might know some because it’s basically construction language, I guess, but people would just talk and I’d be like ‘OK, but how do I spell that?’ You would learn it’s an abbreviation of something and I think at that time, I did realise that even though I had no idea what was going on, I’m quite comfortable with that now. Again, a lot of these resistances are inner resistance. It’s perfectly normal not to know anything about something that’s new. Perhaps a previous version of me might have beaten myself up about that or might have just avoided that situation altogether.

DT:      Similarly, when I have to tell some of the senior makers in the workshop to not be too hard on the younger makers, you have to conversely remind the younger makers to not feel bad about knowing certain things, because even then, within a field you feel you’re almost an expert in, there are always things you don’t know.

There are methods of furniture making I know nothing about, because I’ve either just not been trained to use them or they just pre-date my training and they’re not used anymore. You can go to anyone in the workshop and they will know far more about one aspect than you. Maybe that’s just a lesson for life.

VO:      Yeah, I was going to say that’s everything. When I lived in France, you just had to not know. I couldn’t speak French, so there was a case of just having to ask a question ‘what is that thing?’ in French, having to ask or say to people ‘I don’t understand, can you repeat that?’ Kind of losing your pride, I guess.

DT:      It’s funny with the amount of parallels. Having moved to Norway and learnt Norwegian as an adult pre-dates me focusing properly on writing and I’ve been far less embarrassed about anything in my life now that I’ve gone through the process of learning a second language as an adult and seemingly, in my own head, humiliated myself in public so many times, not knowing what a bread roll is called or not being able to pronounce my Rs at all and they’re really important in Norwegian. People not knowing what I’m talking about because I’ve got a lazy London mouth.

VO:      I had the same thing. I had a stop-over in Paris yesterday, or whenever I flew back, and I asked for, and supposedly I can speak French, but I went to a coffee place and asked for a coffee with soya milk and she was just like ‘huh?’ and I was like ‘Oh God, no, I’ve forgotten already.’ It’s a real baptism of fire, as you will know, and it’s a good lesson. It teaches you to laugh at yourself.

DT:      That’s a very good point. Maybe we can get onto laughing at ourselves as writers afterwards. Not taking myself too seriously is a big thing for me at the moment. It might be a good time for a second reading.

VO:

 For this reading please download the full transcript.

DT:      Thank you very much. We’ll return to one thing we were talking about, when we were discussing ways we read and talked about the books you were reading when you were studying Biology. I’ve spoken to people with a scientific background, I don’t want to put too much of a divide between any subjects, because they don’t exist, but it suddenly struck me it was possibly a very different way of reading, in that I know from speaking to friends who have studied sciences, that fundamental to all of it is to question what you’re reading, in order to question the process.

You wouldn’t necessarily question the text, it’s more the process to get to that point, whereas with creative writing, you’re very much picking apart the text you see within a book. Whether you believe the text or not, the truth is relevant or the fact it isn’t true is…

VO:      The fact that it is fiction?

DT:      Yes, that’s exactly the word. I suddenly couldn’t think what the opposite of non-fiction was. You’re quite right, it’s fiction.

VO:      We could talk that into the ground.

DT:      I was wondering if you’ve ever thought about the influence of that questioning of process has had on your writing?

VO:      So the biological, scientific background?

DT:      That part of your academic study.

VO:      I think actually, in some ways I always struggled with that, the scientific reading. Mostly what I read when I was studying was papers that would be divided up for you, method, a list of equipment and all that kind of stuff and there was a very particular writing style, which I could never seem to get. I’d write essays and my friend would write essays and they’d say ‘your writing style is really good’ and to this day, I do not know what they were talking about.

I think in a way, I leant towards the more literary stuff. Now you see scientists who write popular books who need to be more literary, but the really hard-core biological stuff, I suppose you’re reading, you’re questioning, but I think actually, you can probably argue that mode of thought has invaded everything else. Scientism or intellectualism has invaded literature and ways of looking at art which aren’t really so appropriate for it.

DT:      Do you have any examples?

VO:      I suppose one thing I found when I was workshopping, or actually when I talk about someone’s read something I’ve written, often the first thing people say will be ‘I know nothing about poetry’ or ‘I know nothing about literature’ and that basically means perhaps they haven’t understood what you’re saying, they haven’t got the meaning. ‘I don’t get it’ type of thing.

I feel that’s not the point. If you were to ‘get it’, if you’re reading something and it’s speaking to you and you understand every sentence, then the work hasn’t really done its job. I should be able to read a scientific paper and understand what the scientist thinks they have discovered. That should be plain. You read an essay and should understand their arguments, but I don’t think I should understand immediately what a writer or a poet is talking about, simply by reading the text, if that makes sense.

DT:      Absolutely. It’s something I’ve struggled with since returning to writing six years ago, this need people have for wanting to understand. It seems to be accepted you can listen to a song and not understand every line. It could be emotive and draw something out of you. Even if you don’t remember 75% of the lyrics, it can still be affecting.

There seems to be a huge expectation that you should understand, or the reader should understand everything the writer is trying to say. I don’t understand why that should be anyone’s aim as a writer. I know some people will aim for that.

VO:      The question is usually ‘what is it about?’ Or when a piece of writing is reviewed or critiqued, maybe, often the reviewer will pick out some themes and say ‘this relates to capitalism’ or ‘this relates to a social novel’ or whatever it is. As soon as you’ve done that, it’s the meaning people take away. People get really frustrated with you not giving it up, not saying ‘this is about her dead father’ or something like that.

If I knew exactly what it was about, I wouldn’t have written it or I would have written one sentence. If I could have told you in one sentence what something’s about, then there’s not really any point, is there? So I think actually, writing in a sense has taught me how to read, or how to be a better reader. I still sometimes have a tendency, I think ‘oh, this reminds me of this’, you do have a tendency to generalise or reduce something down into the thin thread you can put into words, or the thin thread you can glean from it, but actually I think the best way to read something, even something scientific, is to read at least the first time, not trying to understand everything, just read it really plainly and that tends to be the best way to absorb work, especially poetry.

DT:      This is something that’s been talked about a lot on the podcast. It’s not something we necessarily need to go into now, but a lot of people have cited the way poetry is taught at schools as the reason for the obsession about understanding things, because the way it’s taught is to unlock this riddle. Things may have changed, it’s a long time since I was at school, but it may be now that some parts of the curriculum are allowing students to read stuff and enjoy it, but it seems as though there is still an emphasis, even if you’re allowed your own individual take on it, there still has to be a take.

VO:      That’s why I hated English Literature at school. I could not hack it. I remember that. Even now, I don’t think I have an incredibly analytical mind and I think when I am forced to analyse things like that, I can’t seem to find the energy for it, whereas some people really can. Also, obviously to be a good critic you need that, but the best critiques don’t look for the thing that they already know. You’re looking to see what the writer is saying or what the writer is evoking, rather than trying to draw out themes that confirm your own viewpoint or understanding of what literature should be saying.

DT:      What do you feel would be the ideal feedback from a reader, with your writing? This would probably change from piece to piece, but as a general thing. There will be a follow-up question as to what you’re aiming for in terms of a connection with readers.

VO:      Any good feedback is nice. You want someone to either be disturbed by something or I think a feeling is definitely better than someone saying ‘oh, I totally get what you’re saying, this is about Freudian psychology’ or whatever. Definitely, you want somebody to feel something. I think the times where I’ve read things and it’s impacted me the most, I remember when I first read The Aleph by [Jorge Luis] Borges, I was just blown away.

There’s no other way I could put it. It’s definitely a bodily thing. I couldn’t at that point have summarised the piece for you, I couldn’t have told you what it’s about or even remembered a lot of it immediately after, but I definitely felt something very strongly. It felt like a truth that has been transmitted to you through your skin rather than with your intellect.

DT:      I tend to find the more I like something, the less I have to say about it. I can’t verbalise why. I just adore Lydia Davis and I can’t ever tell anyone what it is particularly. I’ve thought about it quite a few years now because of having attended these critiquing sessions. I’ve tried to do it a little bit as a thought exercise, to try and put into words why I like something. I have written a few reviews in the past, mainly live events, and I tend to find if I can write 800-1000 words about something, I probably haven’t enjoyed it.

I’m trying to wrench out of myself what certain books mean to me. It’s strange that I have been attracted to writing poetry, because stereotypically that’s mainly people who are trying to express these thoughts and feelings through words, but then it’s probably in a deliberately difficult way. It would never make a review.

VO:      Yeah and also, I think maybe it’s more accepted that you don’t know immediately what poetry’s about. Short stories and novels and narrative are always about something. It has to be about something, unless you’re getting very experimental. Usually the best stuff I read, or the stuff that’s really impacted me, like you, for someone to ask me what it’s about, ‘well, it’s about this man.’ Thinking about [Vladimir] Nabokov’s Pnin, I think he wrote it initially as a short story in The New Yorker and I listened to it on the podcast. If you asked me what it’s about, I’d say ‘well, basically about a guy who loses his suitcase and then gets it back and goes to give a lecture.’ Obviously, that’s not what it’s about.

DT:      Such a good point. There is what happens and there is meaning and they are often disconnected. For some writers, the whole meaning is that stuff just happens. That’s a deliberate style. That’s a very good point you make, stuff is either narrative, seemingly, or experimental. If it deviates from that, it’s considered, I’m talking very much from an English language and British publishing standpoint, you’re either in or out, but it does seem you’re happy to stand outside of that standard.

VO:      Again, it depends. When you’re reading writers you admire or finding new writers that are doing things you’ve never done or never read before, it makes you a bit braver. A lot of the short stories I write are narrative, more or less. They go somewhere or they start with a person. They are stories, I suppose, but then I haven’t really thought too much about whether they are experimental. I’ve been called experimental, but I don’t really think too much about what that means. I guess I just want to get the story done, which is enough, just getting it done, then you leave the labels to someone else.

DT:      In my very narrow experience, the people that call writers experimental have a very narrow view of what experimental means. It’s quite amazing, the amount of poets I see at live events introduced as being experimental… it pretty much solely comes down to them using odd line breaks, there’s very little experimental about the writing. If someone that considered themselves to be an experimental writer, for them to go to the lengths of calling someone else an experimental writer, you’d have to be pretty out there. To impress someone in that ‘club’.

Similarly, the vast majority of writers don’t really care where they are so long as they can keep writing. It’s like you were saying at the beginning, your motivation is just to write and to write as well as you can, that has to meet certain criteria you lay out. There is a narrow band of people that have a very defined idea of what it is to be a writer and they can be quite defensive about the club they are in.

VO:      Definitely. A lot of this, I’m just discovering. The label experimental was at least a year or two ago, fairly new to me, I just knew what I liked and didn’t like. I like a lot of stuff that could be deemed very traditional and other things that could be deemed really out there. Again, what we were just saying, meaning is really the key. Whatever it is, it seems you want that feeling where it’s got in through your skin.

You don’t want the feeling somebody’s telling you how to feel about the sentence they’ve just written or you don’t want to feel like your emotions have been manipulated by a writer trying to control how you read them. You want the transcendent thing. You want transcendence from it. That is the goal.

DT:      I don’t know whether it’s a quote I’ve read or something somebody’s said on the podcast, because my memory doesn’t work that way, but basically ‘there’s a difference between leading people and pushing them’. I’d like to write more short stories, that’s probably going to be my focus more for the next couple of years. A lot of people would think I write more experimentally and whilst I do mainly reject formal narrative, I would agree with you that if it fits with the meaning I’m hoping to drive through – drive, I just said I wasn’t going to drive, I was leading, not pushing – but share with the reader.

If that comes across best with quite a standardised narrative, I would be happy to use that. The one thing I hate about a lot of artistic movements that really disheartens me is when they have a manifesto because it seems to be one long list of things they are rejecting. Similarly, with a lot of artistic movements, it’s a deliberate act to reject everything that’s come before, to invent something new, as though there could be a new way of feeling for a human being.

VO:      Exactly. It’s all really the same thing. I think if you write or make any kind of art, you do think about this. The drive towards experimentation, whatever that may mean today or what it has meant, the avant-garde, modernism, is really the drive towards meaning. I don’t deliberately write the way I do. It wasn’t a conscious choice. It was more of an evolution of style because you want to get there. You want to touch reality and by reality, I mean the reality you feel exists that you can’t see.

There’s no sense it can give you access to it, but you glimpse it and then you’re trying to convey it and your style evolves as the most effective way of doing that, so if I add gaps to the work or write in a very… I think the reason I started, I’ve always written quite surreal work and the reason for that was it felt more real, it gave me more access to what felt real, to write things which were a bit unusual and I think that should be your only driver.

I think a manifesto is nice, I guess it keeps people together. It keeps people out, it keeps some people in. That’s really the only aim and I think whatever umbrella that comes under is fine. Definitely, realism or very traditional writing, I don’t think is as effective anymore. Having said that, I think of writers I really like, Denis Johnson, say, who you would probably say writes realism, writes in such a way that makes it fresh and that’s really what you want, freshness.

There’s a quote attributed to Francis Bacon – the painter, he said the purpose of art is ‘to deepen the mystery’.

I think that’s a good way of putting it. You want to create a vacuum where somebody is drawn in to it. When you’re talking about leading and driving, that’s the way I see it, which is why I don’t like the question ‘what’s it about?’ because as soon as you’ve given someone a meaning, that’s what they take away. You really want them to be dumbfounded. In that respect, you create a space for them to really go into the mystery of it.

DT:      That’s a really nice idea to finish on, giving a reader space to exist in your work and allowing them to do whatever they want, as long as they feel they have the confidence to do it. How we make poetry and a lot of other forms of prose more accessible and more welcoming is a completely different conversation. At least writers are already making the effort to do that with their writing. Unfortunately, I’ve run out of time, but we will take a third and final reading.

VO:      This is a story, At The Heart Of Things, I’m reading an excerpt from it. This story won the White Review Short Story Prize this year, 2019.

 For this reading please download the full transcript.

DT:      Thank you very much, Vanessa. If anyone listening wants to read the full short story, which is fantastic, I will link in the episode description to the White Review website and you can read it there. It’s been so great to hear you read today, because I can really get a sense of the rhythm in each of the pieces, as you mentioned earlier. Thank you so much for coming on, I really loved chatting.

VO:      Thanks for having me, it’s been really nice.

 

Outro:

 

 

DT:      Hello. You stuck around. Grab yourself some vegan Percy Pigs as a treat. As I said in the conversation , I’ll link to Vanessa’s prize-winning short story at The White Review and also to her Twitter page and anything else that I think might be of interest.

The exciting funding news I mentioned at the beginning is that Arts Council England have agreed to fund a project which will see the remainder of the series transcribed and for me to complete the archiving of the series at the British Library. This means that when I finally do hang up my podcasting headphones and millions of microphones, the entire series and the accompanying transcripts will remain available on the British Library  website and hopefully never disappear like so many other audio projects. Just think how many poets’ voices are lost in the mini-disc graveyards of the 1990s. The project will run from February to July so it’s all pretty imminent.

For updates about this series and our, a poem a week series head over to lunarpoetrypodcasts.com, ‘Lunar Poetry Podcasts on Facebook and @Silent_Tongue on Twitter.

And to finish, my friend Mishi Morath. When I first started attending poetry open mic events back in 2014 I naively assumed I wouldn’t hear any voices like mine or those that I grew up around. Not only did Mishi sound familiar, he was one of those people. He was fair bit older than me but was from the same part of London as my family. While his first love was non-league football club Dulwich Hamlet he always talked passionately about poetry and the positive effect that writing and public speaking in the form of poetry readings had on his life. Even if, in his words, poetry did attract too many wankers – though Mishi truly felt there were too many wankers everywhere.

The National Poetry Library on the South Bank in London and the open mic night Poetry Unplugged were almost as important to him as the Dulwich Hamlet terraces at Champion Hill and for anyone that knows how important that club is to him knows that is the highest possible praise. Making this podcast has brought with it a constant stream of nagging doubts, most notably ‘what the fuck am I doing?’, though preserving the voice of a friend seems motivation enough.

I always knew that eventually a guest of the series would no longer be with us and the episode may be one of the few records left of their voice I just hadn’t anticipated it might be someone who I’d miss so much. I sat down with Mishi back in June 2015, for episode 41, in the clubhouse at Champion Hill and we’ll finish with a couple of poems that followed on from us discussing just what poetry had given Mishi. They’re also a pretty good insight into how Mishi viewed his own mortality.

I’ll apologise in advance for the sound quality, I didn’t know what the fuck I was doing back then. Until episode 124, sometime in the spring, here’s Mishi ‘Dulwich Hamlet ‘Morath.

MM:    […]to give that speech or whatever if I hadn’t got the experience of reading at poetry nights. So it’s not just about poetry, it’s about improving your life, making you more confident.

DT:      And finding a way to communicate.

MM:    Sort of. People say I do that anyway, but what I portray publicly is maybe not what I feel inside. That’s another thing about poetry, not only do I enjoy doing it, it’s also very therapeutic and if it clears my head a bit, for whatever reason, I’m not going to give specific incidents, in a way it doesn’t matter, cos there are so many different ones, but if I’m feeling down and I write poetry, I feel better.

DT:      On that note, is it one more to finish?

MM:    I’ve got two small ones. Is that all right or am I taking too much time? I’m going to finish with two lovely morbid ones. This one I wrote after there was a phone-in on LBC about support for some bishops on assisted dying. This is called;

 

 

When The Time Is Right

 

As time creaks on

I start to fear

What will happen

When the end is near.

There’s nothing wrong with me yet

No need to panic

I’m not going crazy

From my normal to manic.

But when I die I want it to be quick

Scared of suffering

Terminally sick.

If ever that happens

I don’t want to linger

Time to go

With the flick of a finger.

Is it too much to ask

To turn off a switch

A painless death

Without a hitch.

I don’t want to suffer

Right to the end

Give me the option

Of a man’s best friend.

One last farewell

A time to say goodbye

Small prick of a needle

A bit of a cry.

At the moment you can only do this

If you’re comfortable or rich

Flying off to Switzerland

When pain’s too much of a bitch.

Poor people like me

Have only the nearest bridge

If we want to die with dignity

To sleep in a mortuary fridge.

You preach “god’s” will

Saying your prayer

Watching me dosed up with morphine

As if you care.

Pumping my body

With a multitude of drugs

Prolonging my suffering

From white coated thugs.

You warn me of Harold Shipmans

Stalking the ward

Well just let me take my chances

And die of my own accord.

 

MM:    This last one is quite topical, it’s about when Charles Kennedy died a few weeks ago. It’s called Another One Bites The Dust and it’s about people’s reactions to death and how people were so nice to him.

 

Another One Bites The Dust

 

I hope when I drop dead

You’re honest about who I am

I’ll be the one who’s brown bread

So won’t be able to give a damn.

If you’re one who never liked me

Don’t pretend that you did

Just say it like it really was

When they nail down my coffin lid.

I don’t want a ton of plaudits

Like for that Charles Kennedy chap

If you must say it how it was

None of that pretend you liked me crap.

Because if you’re someone who I don’t like

I’m not going to pretend to cry In truth

I will be smiling

When it’s your turn to die.

It’s not that I didn’t like him

But bottom line was he’s one of them

And even though he’s seems a decent bloke

At heart he was still a Lib-Dem.

Yes, he died far too young

And had a drink problem like me

But it’s not as if I’m celebrating

More indifferent than full of glee.

He was a politician from the telly

I didn’t share his views

In fact the only thing I’m sorry about

Was that it was him & not Simon Hughes.

 

 

 

 

End of transcript.

 

 

 

 

Episode 122 – Steven J Fowler

Ep122 SJ FowlerEpisode 122 is now available to download/play wherever you get your podcasts.

For this episode I’m in central London talking to experimental poet and artist Steven J Fowler. The pair discuss Steven’s approach to writing and editing (or lack of it), whether it helps to sometimes be ignored as a writer and his work as a curator of European and international literature events.

Below is a transcript of the episode minus Steven’s poetry readings. If you’d like to read a full transcript then you can download it here.

 

Transcript by Christabel Smith

Guest: Steven J Fowler — SJF

Host: David Turner — DT

Intro:

DT:      Hello, welcome to Episode 122 of Lunar Poetry Podcasts. I’m David Turner. All right? It’s been three months since I last released an episode and you might imagine there would be some news or updates for me to give, but no. Nothing has really been happening. I’m still in the process of finishing what will be my first full-length book of poems. The word ‘poems’ there has enormous air quotes around it as they’re just getting weirder every time I work on them. It will be out through Hesterglock Press in 2020. If you’re listening, Paul, my editor at Hesterglock, the manuscript will be with you soon, I promise.

What else? I’m learning to play the piano, so lots of practising scales and trying to teach myself how to play Moondog’s ‘Elf Dance’. I’ve been making a prototype of a chair this week, so I’m fighting the urge to tell you how annoying that has been and I’ve been dreaming about how to make the underframe. The life of a joiner, eh? Oh yeah, I or we or Lunar Poetry Podcasts no longer uses Instagram as it bores me, so in terms of social media, you can find us at Lunar Poetry Podcasts on Facebook and @Silent_Tongue on Twitter. You can of course find lots more information over at lunarpoetrypodcasts.com, where you will also find a full transcript of today’s episode.

This week’s guest is Steven J Fowler. Steven is a multidisciplinary artist that works in the muddied waters between poetry, theatre, film-making, visual arts and performance. He’s also the curator of hundreds of live literature events around the UK and Europe. Steven appeared in episode 33 of our companion podcast series, A Poem A Week, hosted by my wife Lizzy. In that, Steven reads his poem ‘Old Time Wrestles New Time’, which doesn’t feature in today’s episode and you should definitely check out that recording and the other 70 poets that are on Lizzy’s series. Links in the episode description line.

Steven and I met up at his studio round the back of St Pancras station in a very busy part of London, so apologies in advance about the traffic. I don’t think the noises are that intrusive. Also, it gives you an insight to the soundtrack of Steven’s creative process. Imagine him sat at a paint-spattered table as the black cabs pass slowly below. We discuss whether work is ever really finished, or is it just published, so beyond our grasp. Whether or not there is any benefit to just being ignored as a writer and being content with the way you work, regardless of the advice of others.

We also get round to briefly discussing the Nordic Poetry Festival that Steven is organising this year in the UK and will take place 11-17 October at various venues. It’s going to be fantastic and I’m lucky enough to be reading in collaboration with Bård Torgersen at Rich Mix East London, 12 October. Maybe I’ll see you there. If you enjoy this episode or any other, please do help us out by telling friends, family members, work colleagues and squidgy cats.

Word of mouth is the best form of advertising for podcasts, especially this one, and this is not for my benefit, but for the wonderful guests I’ve had on the series. They deserve to be heard by as many people as possible, right? I’ll be back at the end of the episode with an outro and obviously all the way through, but for the moment, here’s Steven J Fowler.

Conversation:

Poem Redacted.

DT:      Thank you very much, Steven. Welcome to Lunar Poetry Podcasts. Thank you for joining me and all the listeners, wherever they are, if indeed they are. Starting interviews is always the most difficult bit. Often I don’t know people at all and this is the first time I’m meeting them, but I know you a little bit now, and it’s always a little bit of a worry, the initial questions that always flash through my head first seem a bit inappropriate for people you don’t know.

SJF:      Please ask me inappropriate questions.

DT:      Not even inappropriate. I know you well enough to feel you are resilient to any of these questions anyway. My question, I wanted it to be: Why all the nonsense?

SJF:      That’s a good question. Yeah, I mean I can’t help but feel that that question is not really about poetry, it’s about something wider.

DT:      Possibly, but I felt it was a good inroad into the wider aspects of your work.

SJF:      That’s true, yeah. I suppose my instinct that might answer the actual question that you’ve posed would be to ask why you would ask that question, not to say that I can psychologically analyse why you did it, because I know you a little bit too, would imagine it comes from your own sense of intrigue, your own engagement with a notion of a non-sense. But also, any time anyone has ever asked me a question, unfortunately, because I am painfully sober and hyperaware, I tend to think first, why are they asking me about the nonsense when they’re the ones bringing the nonsense to the table?

Maybe that is the answer to your question, but I think to compress nearly a decade of careful and unfortunate consideration around my work into the answer of a genuinely important and good question that you’ve just posed me, I think that the brain, where my existence resides, is full of nonsense and that the notion I can control the universe’s experience, which is endlessly difficult and confusing, into a kind of sense beyond just the limits of communicating, would be arrogant and maybe stupid, which I am both at times, but try not to be.

And given that I consider poetry to be the language art and we communicate in language, I try to use poetry for something other than communication and it seems like it’s probably more useful than to utilise it for things that are not the sense of talking.

DT:      It’s interesting, I think out of the hundreds of people we’ve had on the podcast now, I would say that by far the majority view is that poetry is an act of communication and it’s really interesting to talk to someone that believes the opposite.

SJF:      I suppose for me, it would depend what we mean by both the word poetry and the word communication, right? It does communicate something, but so does me falling over. All things communicate something. I think this is about the notion of intention for me. All I’m, I suppose, trying to say is if the meaning of a poem can be done in a conversation, it’s a failure and most poems are a bit like that, no? Most poems are communicating something similar to a conversation and that to me is valid, if done with great skill or in a certain tradition, I find it fascinating and interesting. Just personally, as a person who makes things, I don’t find that very interesting.

DT:      I feel these kind of qualifications that I always give are a bit redundant now, but just so we feel a bit more relaxed in the conversation, neither of us are projecting our own thoughts onto what other writers should do. I’d like for everyone, I say ‘everyone’, I’m including the listeners here, to feel like they can talk about their own work without having to- but I don’t mean other people should follow these routes, blah blah blah… Because I often find myself talking about my own work and excusing myself in some way. Other people don’t have to follow the way I think. Do you feel that’s an issue in general around the way poets interact?

SJF:      I think that’s an issue around all human beings and culture in general. For example, a lot of the time when people tell me: ‘God, isn’t poetry quite competitive or tribal?’, I always say: ‘Compared to what?’ I’ve never done a job where people didn’t talk shop. I’ve never done a job where people didn’t sleight others who do it because they do it slightly different from them. I take it as a human condition.

I don’t think the things I think about do put other people down, for a variety of reasons, the main reason being I think my ideas or interests seem to operate on a slightly different, lower level than other people, actually, not higher level. So I think people have a very refined engagement with the idea of literary criticism and how poetry works, whereas I’ve tried to be a bit less theoretical and more instinctual, so I’m interested in, for example, the idea of authenticity, which is a silly and ambiguous idea, but it’s instinctual, so if I see someone who’s doing, say, a spoken-word poem, a lot of people have associated me as being against spoken word because there are certain elements around this methodology which are so far away from what I do that they assume so, where actually if someone is authentic in what they’re doing, I don’t really care if they’re doing in spoken word, ballet, cooking, flying a kite.

That’s attractive. It’s beautiful and it’s exciting and it generates things for me to do, but if someone is working in a tradition and it isn’t authentic, and I’m just using authentic as one of many criteria, then I just move on immediately to the things that do excite me. I don’t spend any time being negative or critical. That is why sometimes, I think, people take certain things I say as critical against other practices because we’re working in different conditions.

Also, I do say that a lot, exactly as you described, when I say something positive, I’m not trying to put other people down, it’s because I want to be polite. I really, really believe in that. For example, I’ve always refused criticism. I’ve never written an article of criticism for money because if I take money and do a job of work and I don’t like something, I have to lay into it and I have to do that by mentioning someone’s name. Life is short. I have no interest in that at all.

DT:      I got into making the podcast because I started writing reviews of live events for what was then Lunar Poetry Magazine. I had to stop because I felt if I’m going to be really honest, and it wasn’t like I hated everything I saw, but it was like if I’m going to be honest about things, it’s going to be too blunt and I didn’t see the point in doing that. What I really wanted to do was have a conversation about people and their work instead and meet them face to face and actually talk over ideas.

SJF:      I think it’s a failure in me that I won’t do it because I see that negative criticism should be out there, especially at the moment. People need to take responsibility for the space of how things are made, certain trains of thought and critical spaces, so I’m not advocating this as a position. It’s actually a very personal thing and it’s an enormous failure. I’m a coward because the previous jobs I had before were so combative and so volatile and were constantly engaged in conflict, and I enjoyed them, I’m a conflict-orientated person, whether it’s because of something that happened to me or whatever, that’s the case.

So I don’t want any conflict now. That’s my choice. Poetry for me, literature in general, making art and stuff, is a life of putting ideas out that will conflict with other people’s ideas. But it’s not personal to me, I don’t care. So I do think people should be highly critical. I like it when people are critical of my work. I love it, in fact, because I don’t really mind. Actually, I take that as a huge compliment, but I don’t think my work has become widely understood enough that people can be critical of it. I think they just think ‘I don’t get it’ and then they leave it. That suits me also super fine, because I don’t really care.

DT:      That brings me to two points, actually. If we go back to the point you made about believing your work sort of occupies almost a slightly lower position than more refined taste, one of the reasons I mentioned the word ‘nonsense’ is because I wanted to get talking about the idea of playing. You mentioned how serious people are about the way they view their work and how it becomes more and more refined, there seems within that process there is less space to play and it seems really important in your work, especially your latest book with Hesterglock Press, ‘Unfinished Memmoirs of a Hypocrit’[sic], maybe just talk a bit about how freeing yourself up to work is a starting point.

SJF:      Yeah, it’s something I’ve thought about so much. Thank you for the generous question. It comes from hopefully not waffling, but from how I got into poetry. I discovered it later than a lot of my peers, in my mid-20s, about 10 years ago, and I discovered everything at the same time. So I did spend a lot of time engaged with the theorising around it and trying to read back, but I was discovering all kinds of poetry immediately. There is a massive absence of, shall we say, certain bands of aesthetics in poetry, for example, genuinely funny poetry is almost impossible.

Comic poetry isn’t funny. It’s funny in a really unfunny way. Negative aesthetics don’t exist in poetry. What’s the equivalent of a horror film for poetry? Have you ever got to a poem that’s deliberately trying to make you feel upset? Not to inculcate the emotion of sorrow, but make you feel bad, as a pleasure. You never get it. It doesn’t make any sense because poetry is just a means, it’s a refraction of language, it’s a mulching through, just like shooting with a camera or making a sculpture.

I was always intrigued by that. I really think a lot of that is the constipation of theory. There is so much theoretical underpinning that goes around poetry and that’s important in many ways, but what I found is it creates a culture of people who are afraid to do certain things. They are afraid to look silly or be silly or play or make mistakes or be rough or messy. My work is engaged fundamentally in ideas that I hope are really complex, but I hope they’re complex in a way that everyone can understand because existence is complex for every reflexive mammal.

Every human being, every single animal, lives a complex existence and we can do that without alienating people theoretically. So I think that’s how I started to find a road into it. A lot of the things people have done to give their work kind of intelligence stilts, to put it up in the air, had actually put it into a place that most people couldn’t reach. The problem is then people conflate that with accessibility or conflate it with the ivory-tower argument or class and that really frustrates me. It’s actually only being a teacher in creative writing and teaching in different institutions where I’ve realised and formulated an antidote to that, I think.

Trying to teach students who are often from a working-class background why sound poetry or concrete poetry or avant-garde poetry is good, requires you to create arguments of purpose for your own work. So that’s given me a great gift, teaching other people why I think the things I do are important, although not ever teaching my own work, of course, because I’m not a dweeb.

DT:      It resonates that you talk about class and such. When I first got back into writing in my early 30s, having spent 10 to 12 years working with performance and visual artists as a technician but also a producer, I found that suddenly all these barriers I’d broken down as someone from a working-class background and no formal academic qualifications in any subject, as regular listeners will know, I served a joinery apprenticeship, then ended up getting back into the arts that way, it took me a long time within these art settings to shake off a lot of this class bullshit I carry around with me.

It’s very real bullshit, but it’s bullshit nonetheless. I shook it off and I got to work with some really amazing performance artists and we did some really wild stuff and you realise that those things are for you if you want to go out and take them. But as soon as I started writing again, I felt pressure and I could feel myself moving towards more, like we were saying, more refined types of writing, perhaps subconsciously trying to prove myself in some way. It took a couple of years to think well no, I can play with this writing as much as I did with visual stuff and more physical stuff.

Now, a lot of my focus with the podcast is trying to show people from similar backgrounds as myself that these other, weirder types of poetry, or more odd types of poetry, are equally accessible to anyone. It’s just, it seems to be, for a long time, that section of writing has been owned and controlled by people who have been deliberately putting up barriers. You’ve been around the literary scene longer than I have and you are a bit more knowledgeable of the history of it. I’d be interested to know, if I said to you I felt like there were barriers, class barriers, towards more avant-garde and experimental writing in this country, would you argue that I’m wrong in that?

SJF:      Yeah, well you know we both share a background that’s atypical for people involved, especially in more experimental poetry, but I think fundamentally this is about the level of analysis. What you’re saying is practically true, but I don’t really think about it. I create things that do the opposite, rather than lamenting situations I’ve been in where I know people deliberately misunderstand me to further their own agenda, which probably comes from certain class experiences that they’ve had, so I prefer to talk about life experience or work.

I’ve definitely been in environments when I’ve been alienated and ostracised because my concerns and interests, shall we say physical violence, people seem disgusted by the idea it exists. You know, they’re more offended by the idea that I might bring up physical fights than the actual fact they are happening down the road from where those people live, just they never see them because they live a different kind of life. Sometimes I’ve felt people are against me mentioning them because they think the mention of them is an advocation for them, which is insane, because I’ve witnessed and been around more violence and seen its terrible consequences.

Or like the constant presence of prisons in my work, things like that. I understand that’s probably to do with what you’re saying, to do with class and class concerns, but I don’t care about that. It don’t bother me none. I’ve had no one against me, no one really trying to ostracise me, I’ve been embraced by 90% of the people I’ve met and the other 10% have just ignored me, which I take to be quite a nice way to respond to someone you don’t like, or whose work you don’t like.

Yeah, so it’s probably true, but actually, I’m really, really, really engaged with the notion of finding every single person I can who’s got an open spirit and soul and creates authentic, interesting work and trying to offer them opportunities and spaces to share what I’ve found and been part of. Some of those people are from really, really privileged backgrounds and some are from really working-class backgrounds. So yeah, I definitely think you’re right and if I was into that kind of discussion, I’d go super deep on that, but I’m not. I’m really not. I refuse all those things. I’m not saying you were saying that, it’s definitely been an experience of mine, but it doesn’t really matter.

DT:      Your experience probably echoes with mine as well, but I wonder whether a lot of that is to do with luck. When I first started to really seek out more experimental stuff, Lizzy and I had just moved to Bristol, so I found Anathema and Paul Hawkins in Bristol. Before that, I’d been to a reading and met Isabel Waidner and then came across your work. All of these people couldn’t be more welcoming. I’m still examining why I felt like there were barriers because just about all my experiences have proven the concerns weren’t as large as they had been in my head.

SJF:      I think you’re right though and you’ve mentioned two amazing human beings and brilliant writers, Paul Hawkins and Isabel Waidner, both people who are very much concerned with what you’re saying and I’ve learnt a lot from speaking to both of them about their experiences. I suppose, without sounding a bit stupid again, I assume there’s always going to be barriers. Like I assume I’m going to have a barrier because there are barriers between humans all the time.

I’ve never been in any situation, ever, where there hasn’t been a barrier if I wanted to find one and at the end of the day, I suppose again, not really about poetry but about life in general, I just want to make things, I just want to do things, because I suppose my first couple of years in poetry were surrounded by people who were massively theoretical, I mean as theoretical as you can get and I found that fascinating and I learnt a lot. I realised also that it led to a lot of bitterness for some of them and also others never really did anything.

So I suppose my whole events curatorial practice was based around the idea that I was like, oh I see there is an absence of something, how about I do it and then here we go? Then you find out there is some other problem. That’s with those people. No disrespect to them, but it’s just a way of being in the world and I’m so lucky. My body is healthy, my mind is clear, I’m surrounded by genuine warmth and positivity and I have lots of opportunities. I’m not trying to sound super-positive, I’m not all that positive as a person, but that is a fact. I’ve got no complaints at all about class boundaries and things like that.

DT:      You mentioned a couple of times your curatorial practice, we’ll come onto that in a minute, because that’s vast enough on its own. You’ve mentioned a couple of times now about people not liking your work and then ignoring you and you actually not minding that. I wanted to ask what are the benefits of being ignored as a writer?

SJF:      Yes, again, without being too overly analytical, one has to think through what it means to be ignored. Is there some world out there where people aren’t being ignored? Everyone, to a certain extent, is being ignored. There are people, I think you’ve had Raymond Antrobus on your podcast, who’s just had an incredible success with Penned in the Margins, who published one of my books, back in the day. That is just joy for everyone. A good human being, writing good work. The rising tides lift all people.

So there are examples, like with Raymond, whereby mad success can then be compared to yourself and you’re like wow, I’m being ignored. But how many Raymond Antrobus success stories are there? There’s like a couple a year. A big thing for me that I learnt this from is prize culture, literary prize culture. I never thought I would ever be up for a prize really, because my work’s too strange, so I began from a perspective of well, I will be the first ever who will be successful with prizes writing weird work.

Then I noticed a lot of my peers, who’d maybe started earlier, had different opinions, it would hurt their feelings. Every year they would feel snubbed. I would say: ‘There’s only one person who gets it. Only one.’ Of all the things that could happen, this should not affect you. I mean, I’ve definitely witnessed it, seen people release less books, do less things, move in a certain way. I understand that, I do understand it. But it’s those kind of things that then make me understand a clearer view of what is being ignored and what’s not being ignored.

I suppose, if we were being colloquial and generalised, you could say that my work has never really gone into a middle space, a Guardian review page type press. That’s my fault. I’ve published too much, my work is too weird, I probably don’t edit my work well enough, blah blah. I probably do too many things at once. I’ve just come to accept that is an authentic expression and my way of making work. At the same time, I’ve made a living from it, I’ve travelled round the world, I’ve worked with incredible people, I’ve gotten on with 90% of the people I’ve met and I’ve met a lot of people through it. I have also completely not been ignored, not at all.

What I’m trying to say is, the first thing first about being ignored, not being ignored, it’s an ego thing, it’s a subjective thing. If you feel bad one day because you got rejected from a thing, you feel like you’re not appreciated, again that’s a human condition, it can be mastered. So I don’t feel that very much, but what I do think is that if you lie in a fallow space, a middle space, where people don’t quite know what you’re doing, they’re not quite sure what you mean, you have the opportunity to constantly reinvent the joy of making things, writing things.

I get enough attention that I’m constantly busy and engaged, doing lovely things like this, thanks again for asking me by the way, but then also, I’m not under brutal scrutiny or the pressure to sell books. Last year alone, I was making a film, I made a feature-length film with my friend Joshua Alexander called ‘The Animal Drums’. We’ve got Iain Sinclair in it. Iain Sinclair is obviously this legend, he kind of invented this geographical writing. Brilliant poet. One of the most important poets of the British poetry revival, he has been incredibly generous to me. An incredibly supportive presence.

We were talking, just offhandedly, before we started filming and he said to me: ‘You should always take note of how lucky you are that you can write whatever you like. You’re free. You don’t have a press telling you “that’s too strange, that’s too weird”.’ My editors support my gestures, they help me edit but they give me freedom. So the joy of not being super-commercially successful is that I’m creatively free. That is, if you can appreciate it, an incredible gift.

DT:      Your point about prize culture, it’s very understandable why people would get jealous or bitter for not winning these things. You can see easily why a new writer looking forward might aspire to that as a marker of success, which is a shame because it can only let you down. Like you said, there’s only going to be one winner of each prize and who knows how these things are being judged?

Of course then, if you do have that kind of success, what pressure does that then put on you to produce a similar type of work? Does it push you down one avenue? I was hoping for that question to lead in this direction, to talk about freedom within your writing. Again, going back to the opening question about nonsense and leading onto play, and this idea of freedom, you feel like one of the freest writers I know. I think the reason I feel that is because you don’t feel tied to writing and so many people are bound not only to writing, but to poetry, which seems like a terrible curse on someone. I know some people are genuinely that focused and that directed, but it seems a very narrow space to live in.

SJF:      I don’t want to get pretentious or too deep, but I understand that if someone is engaged say in the profession of writing – with fiction it makes a lot more sense than poetry – but some of the guidelines would be ‘if I get a prize, then I get a better publisher, sell more books, then I’ll be able to write more books, then I won’t have to work in a shop’. I think not only does that make sense, because it’s brilliant, it’s kind of truthful, but again, I know it sounds silly, genuinely, my work is about me finding a path towards contentedness and gentility and decency to other people.

It’s not the main reason, it’s just a wee part of it. What I eat and how I exercise and how I sleep and the people I spend my time with, these are all nodes in a genuine daily commitment to have a better existence, just because I want to be happy before I die, because I’m going to die really soon, relatively. So if I then only wrote in Times New Roman 12-point font and indented, even though I had the desire to handwrite a book, say, that would be really weird because there’s no comeback on that. There’s only so much you can get.

To get back to your point, I’ve known people who’ve been mad successful, hugely commercially successful, I had the privilege of collaborating with some people who are hugely successful and happiness is relative. I think a lot about the concept of tolerance. I’m writing a book at the moment about prescription drugs and a brain and thinking a lot about the word tolerance. You tolerate joy and it wears off. Your success goes. Everything goes. You get used to everything.

So to a certain extent with me, I just try to keep my guideline as these deeper ideas. Intuition and instinct and exploration and innovation, these silly words that sound like a car advert, they are actually the driving force behind why we start doing all of this. How do we keep that light alive? If that’s who we are, if that’s what our authentic expression of things is. It is mine, because I’m brutally impatient and I want to discover new things and meet new people and live a good life through this work.

Well, that’s going to lead me to do a lot of different kinds of work, as you say, not limit myself and not worry if someone does say in my ear, which they have done pretty consistently: ‘Don’t publish more than a book a year or you can never be with…meh’ Or: ‘Don’t organise events as well as publish because people will think you’re just trying to promote your own… Don’t…’

Yeah, all right, I hear what you’re saying. You’re scared and that’s fine. I’m just going to do what I’m going to do. People will either be with it or they won’t be with it. I hope they’re with it. If someone has a dog, I’d rather have them as a friend than an enemy.

DT:      That’s the perfect time to go into a second reading.

SJF:      I might read something from my brand-new book that I’m writing at the moment, which is due to come out in 2020, with Dostoevsky Wannabe Press, who publish Isabel Waidner and a lot of amazing people.

DT:      A fantastic publisher.

SJF:      Just a brilliant publisher, based in Manchester. They’re publishing a book of mine called ‘I Will Show You The Life Of The Mind On Prescription Drugs’. That book is a result of a residency I did at the Wellcome Trust and a lot of explorations in a field that I’ve kind of called the name ‘neuropoetics’. So it’s like neuroaethetics, but it’s about how language functions in the brain and how we might utilise language arts as a way of exploring brain function.

We are unable to reproduce this reading at this time. Apologies.

DT:      Thank you very much.

SJF:      Pleasure.

DT:      Because you’ve read new work there and you’re talking about a book you’re working on, which seems like a state you’re constantly in anyway, I could probably ask you any day, but what are your feelings around the idea of finishing something?

SJF:      That’s something I’ve thought about a lot. Thank you again for asking a question that’s on my mind often. I think because I like this notion of constant work, like I enjoy the idea of being prolific because it’s just the way my brain functions, it’s the way that I’m motivated, I have maybe a different relationship to the notion of the finished poem or the finished fiction or the finished anything.

I like it when context decides the content. I like it when the deadline is the time it’s finished. I like it when the editor decides. I’ve had lots of experience with presses and they have been almost 100% positive. I’ve had great relationships with people I’ve worked with at presses, even though I’ve worked with lots of different ones. When an editor comes in and rips things to shreds, they think I’m going to be upset about it, but I love it. I love it.

I mean, I can choose whether to accept or reject, but a lot of the time, I accept because that means it’s finished. They’ve come in and engaged with it in a way that makes it something else.

DT:      That’s a very good way of looking at it.

SJF:      So for me, the notion of the finished work is maybe slightly different than a lot of people, so I know that a huge part of their poetry is this dichotomy, this split, and again I speak to my students a lot about this, between the draft and the final version and it’s something that people tinker with, the capitalisation of certain words and the play of things.

I just had a collaborative poem with Max Porter, who’s an amazing writer, taken for Poetry magazine in America. Their editing is incredibly finite, almost to the point where I was laughing really loud, because every single time you sent something back with their corrections, they said: ‘what about this comma? Can we spell it the American way for “labour”, without the u?’ I was just like ‘whatever you like, whatever suits you.’

I don’t care. I know it does matter a lot to other poets. I know why it does, but it doesn’t matter to me. American or English spelling of labour? I don’t care! Why do I care? I mean, that’s not why I wrote it and I’m not fussed about that at all, so maybe I have a more transitional view of what finished is than other people. The finished bit is the one in the latest book. It’s on the page, I’m not working on it anymore, it’s obviously done. What about you, what do you think?

DT:      It’s interesting. I find my writing is a place that exists further from higher standards, so as a furniture maker, I have a very defined idea of what finished means, because finished means a point at which someone is going to enjoy what I’ve made and they have to live with it. It has to be durable, look right, there are a number of fluctuating criteria, but they are all very high standards, each of these criteria.

People are paying a lot of money for the furniture we make. I’ve been doing this for 20 years now, I like to think I’m good at it and what I make I’m hoping people can pass down through generations, etc. I don’t want that to exist in any other part of my life. Those standards are really exhausting, very tiring and I like that my writing is an escape from that.

I share your view, well, you didn’t quite mention it, but I think we’re probably going down the same path here, but once something’s on a page, I’m free of it and I don’t have to go back to it. I find the overwhelming relief that it’s gone and done far outweighs if I ever find a mistake in something. If I ever do read over something and think ‘Shit, that wasn’t right’ or ‘I should have changed that’, the relief that it’s gone and out of my mind outweighs any worry I would have about regretting anything that I chose to do.

SJF:      One of the weirdest things I’ve found is some of the books I’ve edited least, I think my favourite book I’ve ever written is called ‘Minimum Security Prison Dentistry’, it was published by Anything Anymore Anywhere Press. He asked me do I have a book, it’s 2011 and I’d just finished my first year in poetry and I published two other full-length books that year, which ruined me forever, basically, because you shouldn’t ever do that. Your debut book should be important.

I was oh yeah whatever, I’ve got this different stuff and mashed it together and sent it to him. ‘I love it, I love it.’ Any mistakes of it, the aberrations, it’s the best thing I’ve done and that was a huge lesson to me because the other book I did that year with Knives Forks And Spoons, ‘Red Museum’, that’s one of only two books I’ve done where I might do another version one day. Or I’ll go in and mash it up. I think that’s a big thing to me.

I don’t have set rules or patterns for things, it’s an adaptable process. You finish certain books and whatever the mysterious process is that took you to making them, especially a poetry book or collection, because they’re really weirdly constructed when you think about them, the order. People never talk about that. ‘I spent weeks on order, that follows that’ and what, four people read the book and they don’t even read it cover to cover? They pick it up at page 67 and go ‘that’s good’.

I was like ‘yeah, but that follows the poem about the egg and that’s the bacon poem’, you know what I mean? There’s this stupid process that’s mystical and strange. I’ve just learnt to embrace that and as you say, when your book comes out, you’ve got it on the page, you open it, you don’t know how you’re going to feel and that changes mood to mood, day to day, year to year. I just reserve the right that I can go back in and meddle with things if I want, but most of the time I don’t because I’ve got a new idea.

DT:      These things are at the forefront of my mind at the moment because I’m getting to the point where I’ve finished my first book, which will come out with Hesterglock.

SJF:      Congratulations and a great press.

DT:      A really good press. I’m asking myself exactly the same questions. Do I spend endless amounts of evenings after work ordering these poems or do I think well, people probably aren’t going to notice? I suppose the question is you’ve got to do whatever makes you happy in the moment.

SJF:      Exactly.

DT:      What I would like to try and achieve is some way of, what I like about shorter projects and pamphlets, I’ve done a couple with other people, is that they feel like they exist more in the moment, because you can finish them faster and you can get them out more readily. They come out fairly quickly after they’ve been written, whereas what’s coming out for me with Hesterglock has taken a much longer time to write and it spans a longer amount of time. It feels a bit like things are being shoehorned together a little bit. I think that’s what those types of books are, often.

SJF:      I’ve changed so much about that, but I do think about it a lot. I mean, it’s a good time to have good friends. I’m always pitching off stuff to people, especially people who aren’t involved in poetry at all, or even literature, and just say ‘what do you think of this?’ If you get really negative stuff back, you know you’re on the right track. I think also this can be expanded metaphorically about the notion of publishing a book in general.

The amount of people I’ve known also that have said, not to say that all my friends are negative, like I said with the prizes, but who are disappointed by the reception of their book and why maybe it’s good to have pamphlets before that. I had that. I had a crisis with a book and what it was and what the point was. I had a really profound experience with a poet called Anselm Hollo who was like the anti-laureate of America and lived the most amazing life.

He left Finland just after the Second World War to live in Germany, then lived here in the 60s and 70s, then moved to America and I put on the last-ever reading he gave before he died and I read every single one of his published books after he’d died. I felt myself powerfully in them, where he was, what he did. I realised then that his authentic expression of publishing a massive bibliography was, even if it was just me reading it, a profound and powerful physical, ambiguous expression and legacy.

Then I realised ‘wait a minute, I want that.’ Tomaž Šalamun, another person, has 45 books he published in his life and has his library in Ljubljana. I’ve been there and looked through his books and spent days reading them. You can read a person’s life through their work that way. Then I suddenly realised, lightbulb, it’s all right to publish two books a year if you want, every year. I mean yeah, 1000 people won’t read them, who cares? You can’t be there when they read them anyway.

It’s something I say to my students a lot. You’re in a job whereby the best moments your work will create for other people, you won’t witness them. There’ll just be some professional critic in The Guardian with an ideological purpose, writing reviews whether they like you or don’t like you as a person or have heard about you and met you, but the actual people who read you, you never know. So do it out of motivation. So yeah, I think about those questions a lot.

DT:      Since you mentioned putting on Anselm’s final reading in this country, this is probably a good opportunity to start talking about your curatorial work and events you put on. Could you give a quick, very brief breakdown of what types of events you run and how they run? I’ve got a couple of questions to follow on from that.

SJF:      Sure, no worries. So I basically started about 10 years ago a project called Enemies that was all about collaboration, essentially, but it was also a way to kind of Trojan-horse experimentation into live readings because I found the traditional, salon-orientated reading to be pretty unsatisfying and uninterrogated and I think 90% of people agree and are thinking of their shopping lists. We all know this kind of stuff, I don’t need to go on about that.

So really it was about internationalism and collaboration, trying to get people from different countries to come to England, work with British poets, and then that grew and I started doing tours and going to other countries to do collaborations. That was an amazing way to navigate the universe and work with other people. Then I started a project called Poem Brut, maybe two or three years ago, which is about material and a lot of things we’ve already talked about, context and content, experimentation, mess, things being hand-made, things being physical.

One of the constituent elements of any reading or performance is proximity, physical space, three dimensions. That’s what Poem Brut is about, as well as about cognitive differences. Enemies evolved into the European Poetry Festival, which was a concentration of that collaborative European energy in London. I’ve done lots of commission events, loads of events where people have asked me to come in to start a series or start themed live-literature things, so yeah, it’s been a massive, expansive part of my practice really.

DT:      What I found interesting about all of these different events you’ve put on and this is quite a selfish view because I run the podcast, blah blah blah. It’s interesting the amount of documentation that goes into it. These are successful and very well-attended life events, but there also seems a real emphasis on filming stuff, recording stuff, getting stuff locked down and preserved in some sort of way. As preserved as digital media can be. We won’t get into the nature of all that stuff. I just wanted to ask how important legacy is in your work and if it’s different for the curatorial side of your practice and your own writing?

SJF:      For my own writing, I still think I’m too early into it to understand ideas like that. Maybe I slightly mentioned that with the Anselm Hollo anecdote and why I publish a lot of books. I don’t envision a moment when my work will be useful or important to people in the future. I’m pretty sure it resolutely will stay about where it is now. I really try not to care either way.

With the events, actually I document for two reasons. One is because I really, theoretically, want to embrace their transitory nature. I think as you say, by acknowledging the limitations of the documentation, they are fundamentally simulacrous shadows of the live thing. It’s more of a way of giving the poets and artists who are engaged with it a note of respect, like here’s a thing that has recorded what you’ve done and you can use it to navigate the modern world of being a poet or an artist.

Also, a kind of engagement with professionalism, but really, the most important thing is because I resist all critical theorisation around my events, like I’ve turned down conferences on my events, I’ve turned down reviews, articles. If you scour the internet, the 600-700 events I’ve done, you won’t find many reports because when people ask me, I say no thanks. They’re not Utopian. I’m against Utopian ideas, they lead to disappointment.

It’s a transitory thing, it’s in time. We get together, we have a nice evening, we do some interesting things, we support each other, we do challenging work and then it’s Tuesday. I don’t care. The videos are precisely there, frozen in time because there is no theoretical underpinning to the events in anything but a more colloquial, professional way.

Also, when I started, I had a couple of experiences with people who told me, for example when I discovered the work of Tom Raworth, who’s very important to me, I scoured the internet for videos, for recordings. I didn’t find that many, then I’d meet people who knew him very well before he passed away and they’d be like ‘yeah, I have got a box of recordings.’ Then you’d go and it’s disintegrated. So recently, my You Tube archive, which is about 2000 videos, the National Poetry Library are going to put it in their collection and have it there for the future. That’s lovely, that is a legacy. I don’t care though. It’s just the way it is, I don’t think it’s that big a deal.

DT:      Legacy is a bit of a weighted word, I don’t really mean that, I’m just really struggling for an alternative. It resides in my mind though, I couldn’t really care less where my work sits, but the work I do with the podcast, I’m very, very engaged with preserving it. Perhaps preservation is a better word than legacy, preserving some sort of document of what you’ve done, primarily the voices of the people who’ve been involved in the events, rather than yourself, which is what I’m trying to do with the podcast.

SJF:      I think that’s great. When I followed your podcast and congratulations on what you’ve done with the podcast and the longevity of it, because that’s a huge constituent factor. People start them, do 30, then they’re like ‘I’m not getting any feedback. I’m not getting vibe, I’m going to leave it.’ In way that’s what I mean by saying I’ll take the You Tube videos and I think oh, maybe David will take this as an act of respect, I recorded his work and put it online in a resource he can access and makes him feel good about doing my event or engaging.

That’s where I stop thinking because it allows me to keep doing it every time as a practice, whereas if I was thinking I’m going to record the finest voices of my generation and put them on a You Tube channel, I would perhaps be oh, I haven’t moved the needle in terms of contemporary literature, why are they not speaking about me on the Bookseller 10 years later? I don’t care about that. That’s a big part of it, I want my events to be…

There’s an ambulance, a London ambulance. Yeah, I want my events to be transitory and engage in that, but I like being seen as a professional as well as an artist, someone who works on what they do and develops it, as I think you do too.

DT:      I’ve spent a lot of time trying to shake it off, but I’ve had to embrace it. I think it’s an unnecessary yoke I carry with me, feeling like I need to prove to everyone that I’m working hard and visibly work hard because you can’t, unless you’re going to sit in a shop window at your desk and write with everyone watching you, people won’t…

This is what I find strange about creative pursuits, it’s very seldom you’re seen to be working. I was very guilty when I first started the podcasts, that I was trying to visibly put out a lot of stuff. Not really for my own promotion, I really wanted to promote other people’s work, but I felt like it became exhausting because it was slightly for the wrong reasons. Once I addressed that and rebalanced it, I had a much healthier relationship to the whole thing.

Similarly to what you’re saying, I had to set a few ground rules which allowed me to say that’s out now, it’s gone and done and I can’t sit around to see whether I’m increasing the listener figures for this episode and whether I’m making inroads into possibly selling advertising. Once I let go of all of that…

Going back to your earlier point, I wanted to do this to be content. I don’t want to do it to be unhappy because I’m striving for things that are unattainable. I want to have the conversation and make it as accessible as possible, with points people can interact with.

SJF:      I think about this a lot, how do we get this balance? Because there is meaning in work. A lot of people aspire to be free of that kind of stuff and that was my goal. I wanted to use this pursuit to not have to work a 9am to 5pm job, because I was doing that for the first seven years of my writing. It was only three or four years ago I stopped doing that kind of work.

Now I teach, which some people see as a real hard grind, but uni teaching, I’ve had great joy doing it. It’s a great privilege for me to do it. I think about that a lot too. This constant pressure, is that why I do so much? I think about that in my head all the time. Is it that I feel guilty that I get to write a lot? Actually, no, it’s not the reason, but I have spent a lot of time thinking about it because there is clearly value and meaning in working hard and having that mentality of grinding.

I love that kind of feeling when you’re making something and you’re in it, but I’ve also had brutal suspicion and maybe one or two fallouts with people who perceive their artistic practice as some sort of grind. I’m like it’s not a grind! Oh my God, if you think that you’re a miner…

DT:      I used to work in a bronze foundry, I used to pour bronze. Since then, I haven’t moaned about any job. That was grafting. It’s not to take away from the amount of effort that people put into things, but people definitely have a skewed idea of what some people have to do for a living and the amount it takes out of them.

SJF:      Yes indeed.

DT:      There are some poor fuckers who, like you say, are in the ground for their whole working life.

SJF:      Exactly. My family’s family are paramedics, nurses, soldiers, teachers. I’ve laboured, I’ve worked on the doors. Everyone has it hard. I think that includes artists and poets because it’s all relative, but my feeling is if you’re not suspicious about what you do, unless it’s really hard, then you miss a trick in your soul. Because if you’re a nurse, working double shifts, you don’t have to worry about this question because you are just under unbelievable pressure.

But if you’ve got that mentality and you’re a writer, you’re like oh no, I’m melancholy because I sit in all day and I don’t do anything and I’m writing another book that no one reads, that’s a fair suspicion. There’s nothing wrong with that, but saying it out loud? Or living that lifestyle, like you’ve got it tough? I don’t know, maybe because I’ve done jobs where I felt I was drowning constantly, it makes me feel a bit queasy, I’ve got to be honest.

I’ve got a bit of an ethical problem with that. This is a huge constituent of my work, actually, the notion of perspective. I really think about that a lot. That’s why I like my work having this strange feeling of kind of menace and confusion because I want people to at least have a moment where, if they don’t understand it, it creates a kind of perspective of what they do understand. Maybe that’s a good function of my work, I think about it all the time.

If you read a poem that says ‘As I floated down the river, I thought of my love’, I’m like I get that, you’re remembering someone you loved, how sad. Then you read mine and it’s just squiggle, squiggle, squiggle, I don’t get it, at least then you’re creating a notion of perspective because in my lived life, exactly speaking to what you’re describing here, that’s so important to me. Perspective. We are going to die. That’s the only thing that bonds us together, that’s a beautiful thing. People in the majority of all time and place have had it 1000 times worse than I have it. How do I deal with that and still express my concerns? That’s a huge thing about what my work is about.

DT:      Let me know when you get the answer.

SJF:      Never! Exactly. When I’m in the ground. Sorry.

DT:      No, it’s fascinating. I just worry we could really go down a hole.

SJF:      Let’s do it, David, let’s turn it into a metaphysical podcast.

DT:      We’ll have to do a part two of the conversation.

SJF:      Any time.

DT:      What I’d like to just talk about briefly at the end here…

SJF:      Are we at the end? You’re breaking my heart.

DT:      We’re not at the end of anything, we are purely at the beginning.

SJF:      The beginning of the end.

DT:      Yeah. Talking about the live events, it’s vital we talk about how underpinning so much of what you do is collaboration and not only collaborating with other people, but you smashing other artists together, mainly around Europe. I know it does go wider than that, but with the European Poetry Festival, maybe we’ll talk briefly about the importance you see in collaboration.

Now we’ve touched on you admitting you’ve driven yourself into the ground by working too much and trying to prove yourself, this idea of why you feel collaboration is so important to your work and also to avant-garde writing in general…

SJF:      I suppose I was always confused that I was the only one who was interested in collaboration, in a medium that is inherently based in solitude. But then it’s based in solitude in a way I’m confused by the way people speak about it. The problem of other minds and philosophy or whatever, it’s the fundamental problem of all existence. I don’t know what other people are thinking.

I don’t know you’re not a robot right now, David. There’s no way to be inside other people’s… You’re nodding because you are an automaton. This is an issue. That’s what communication really is. We all know that most of the time when people are communicating, they’re not listening to each other. We all know we read body language, blah blah blah, we’ve read all these articles about this stuff.

The reality is that we’re a pack animal. We have a collective mindset. When we’re isolated, we feel bad about being alive. Poetry is an engagement with an internal and personal language experience. That’s what it fundamentally is. To me, collaboration is a way of mediating that. It’s an addition, it’s not to replace. Writing is a lonely task, no matter what your writing is, fundamentally. Like existence is. You’re born alone, you die alone, you don’t share a mind.

To me, collaboration is a way of literally and clumsily overcoming that. What I’ve learnt through doing it by accident, in these Camarade pairs, where I pair people off who’ve never met before and ask them to create a work with no criteria apart from a time limit, what I find is the very nature of collaboration removes a tension from the kind of practice that the poets seem to think their work represents who they are, so they write a very certain kind of way, because that’s who they are, that’s how they see themselves and when they collaborate, they get up and do wacky stuff.

They will go full weird-po, as I like to say, because they’re doing it live, it’s almost never in print and that’s not an accident even though most people think it is and they’re sharing responsibility. They can blame the other person. Maybe this is just a personal opinion or cheeky of me, but a lot of people I’ve invited have very formal print practices and they work they do live with collaborative partners is better, freer, more entertaining, more alive.

Collaboration has a methodological purpose. It’s inspiring, it’s collective, it’s human, it’s fun, it’s engaged, it changes the tenor of events. It also has a change in the way people write. It’s also about responding to how weird it is that poets and writers don’t really collaborate when almost every other art form does.

DT:      It’s been nice hearing several poets that you’ve invited say, almost apologetically, ‘I’m really surprised to have been invited to take part’. They probably don’t view their own work as being particularly stage-based or with some sort of performative aspect to their work and it’s really nice that the collaborative aspect can draw that out of them or doesn’t, just forces them to be part of it and often that’s enough. You just need the impetus to get up and perhaps have the shield of someone else standing next to you or perhaps lying on the floor or jumping around on table.

SJF:      Or crying.

DT:      Or riding round in one of those scissor lift things that was at Rich Mix last time.

SJF:      Someone built their own walking poem and walked around with a little castle. That’s the thing, it’s a protection in a way, but why not? There’s no doubt that collaboration has been a gateway to my own and many other people who’ve been involved in Enemies and the European Poetry Festival towards doing a more engaged version of a live poetry, which we have a responsibility to do, I think. To me, that means something very specific again. It’s like a version of what we’re doing with the book. It’s been an amazing, accidental exploration.

DT:      How long has the European Poetry Festival been going on for?

SJF:      We’ve done two, so the third year will be next April.

DT:      Coming up very shortly in London is the first Nordic Poetry Festival, which is an extension, is it?

SJF:      It is. It’s an experiment. It’s a sister festival because really, I got asked to do that. A lot of the poets who had come from Scandinavia and the Nordic region really enjoyed it and I’ve been invited to organise similar things across Scandinavia over the last three or four years. I’m really open to doing other kinds of sister festivals like that, with different regional specificities.

DT:      Just because this particular event is looming, maybe we should break away from having a proper conversation and go into a bit of spiel, dates, venues and stuff.

SJF:      Thank you. So the festival starts on October 11th at Burley Fisher Books, then has a second event in London, October 12th, Saturday night at the Rich Mix, the big Camarade, which I’m very happy you’ll be involved in, David. It’s fantastic, with your experience of living in Norway and so forth.

Then we’ll go on a mini tour, Norwich at the National Centre for Writing, who’ve been an amazing supportive partner of a lot of my events and these festivals, on Monday 14th October, then 15th we go to York to the Jorvik Centre, which is so funny and so good and I know all the poets probably won’t get round to hearing this podcast, so they won’t know that it’s this giant, beautiful in-joke for me that I bring all these avant-garde Scandinavian poets and take them to the Jorvik Centre, where it smells like sour milk.

I’ve actually booked the ride. They don’t know that when the reading finishes, I put them on the mechanical ride. That makes me glow inside. Then we come back for one last reading in Kingston-upon-Thames, where I teach at the university, so it’s part of the Writers’ Centre, which I run there too. Yeah, it’s short, a burst, like 30 poets coming from all over the Nordic region. There is some incredible work happening up there, it’s going to be really fun and all the events are free.

DT:      I really cannot recommend highly enough that you go and check out some of these events if you can. If not, try and find some of the recordings that will no doubt be made. Links to everything we’ve been talking about today, including links to Steven’s work, which we haven’t really touched on in terms of where you can find things, but stick around, it will be in the outro. Possibly. It’s weird talking about things I haven’t even thought about yet. They will be in the outro, they will exist.

SJF:      You will make it happen.

DT:      You can find those links in the episode description, people that are listening. It’s the end.

SJF:      It’s the end. Thank God it’s the beginning of the end. Thanks again for having me.

DT:      I’ve been really looking forward to talking to you properly. We talk fairly often, but that was the whole point of getting the microphone, it was to pin people down for an hour.

SJF:      I’m glad you’re back in London.

DT:      Me too. We’re going to finish with a reading please.

SJF:      So this is a poem from a book I published this summer, 2019, called ‘I Stand Alone By The Devils, And Other Poems On Film’, by Broken Sleep books. Thanks to them for suffering under my work.

Poem redacted

Outro:

DT:      Hello. You stuck around. Grab yourself an ice-cold Capri Sun from the fridge as a reward. I hope the traffic noises and squeaky chair didn’t annoy you too much. I also hope you enjoyed the conversation. I certainly enjoyed recording it. It’s a conversation I’ve been wanting to record for a while, so I’m glad we both found the time. We’re both pretty busy at the moment.

I’m a bit disappointed, looking back, that I let the issue of class slip by. I suppose that’s been spoken about enough in the series previously and Steven and I wanted to discuss other things, but I regret not pushing him more on the idea of recognising issues around class and ignoring them, even if ignoring them is based on providing platforms and spaces that counteract these things. Perhaps we should all be a bit more outspoken about these things, I don’t know.

For more from Steven, go over to his website stevenjfowler.com. If I started now to list all of his work, we’d be here for another hour so I will allow you to go and seek that out for yourselves. One thing I would check out is Steven’s appearance on episode 12 of Matthew Blunderfield’s Scaffold podcast, in which he talks about a residency he did at an architect’s studio and what it means to attempt to write future-facing poetry. It’s a really fascinating discussion.

I’ll be back before the end of 2019 with episode 123. I still have no idea who will be joining me though. That’s a deliberate choice now. I’m trying to not allow the podcast to take control of my life too much, so I’ll just be seeing who interests me and who is available nearer the time. That’s quite enough for today. Be good to yourselves, I’ll speak to you soon.

End of transcript.

 

Episode 121 – Astra Papachristodoulou

121 Astra PapachristodoulouWe’re back! Episode 121 is now available to download wherever you get you podcasts.

For this episode I’m in Walthamstow, east London talking to experimental poet and artist Astra Papachristodoulou about the importance of collaboration and the visual look of words on a page in her practice. Astra is pretty determined not to be restricted by conventional definitions of what it is to be a poet and happily exists on the boundary of different media, so it was interesting to hear why she’s so keen to introduce rules and constraints into her writing.

Below is a transcript of the episode, minus the poems that Astra reads. If you’d like a complete transcript then click here.

 

Transcript by Christabel Smith

 

Host: David Turner – DT

Guest: Astra Papachristodoulou – AP

 

Introduction:

DT:      Hello, welcome to Episode 121 of Lunar Poetry Podcasts. My name is David Turner. It’s been a while since we last talked. How are you lot doing? A lot has been happening since episode 120, back in November 2018, including me and my wife moving back to London from Bristol. I say London, but it’s actually Walthamstow, which is almost the countryside. Taking the break from releasing new episodes also coincided with the end of the funding I was receiving from Arts Council England, so one last thank you to them for their support.

This means I’ve gone back to my previous life as a joiner, a furniture maker, and if you like early 20th-century, modernist furniture, made from curved plywood, then check out the company I work for, Isokon Plus. I mentioned the move and going back to full-time wok because it’s relevant to the shape the podcast will take in the future. Realistically, I’m only going to have time to release episodes quarterly. I might be able to turn around some shorter, bonus episodes, but I think a new one every four months is what I can manage around life, work and my own writing, without it becoming a burden.

I hope that while I’ve been away, you’ve all been supporting and listening to our companion podcast, A Poem A Week, produced by my wife Lizzy, in which poets read their own poems or a favourite by someone else. If not, you can rectify that straightaway, innit? You can find that series wherever you get your podcasts or over at our website, lunarpoetrypodcasts.com, where you can also find a list of over 50 poetry podcasts, produced in the UK and Ireland.

Also on the website, you can find a full transcript of this episode alongside over 80 more episodes, link in the episode description. For today’s episode, I’m in conversation with an experimental poet, performer and artist, Astra Papachristodoulou. We met up in Walthamstow last month to chat about the importance of collaboration and the visual look of words on a page in her practice.

Astra is pretty determined not to be restricted by conventional definitions of what it is to be a poet and happily exists on the boundary of different media, so it was interesting to hear why she’s so keen to introduce rules and constraints into her writing. I was actually  quite nervous in the build-up to recording in such a long break, but I am very happy to be making episodes and chatting to you through your phones, tablets and computers again.

If you like what you hear, then do me a solid one and tell your friends, family, colleagues, etc. Word-of-mouth recommendations are still by far the best way for podcasts to reach new listeners and I say this, not for my own benefit, but for all the wonderful guests that have featured on this series. I’ll be back at the end of the episode, but for now, here’s Astra with a couple of poems.

Conversation:

[Download transcript for poems]

DT:      Thank you very much, Astra. Thank you for joining me on the podcast today. I’m going to start off with a question I haven’t asked in many years on the podcast. When this series first started a long time ago, listeners will know the first question in every interview was ‘Why poetry?’ We stopped asking that because it felt like it became too gimmicky, even though it threw up some really interesting answers. Just knowing a little bit about your work and having chatted to you a bit before, I felt like it was a good start for our conversation. So I just wanted to ask you: ‘Why poetry?’

AP:       So it’s interesting. I don’t know if we’ve talked about this before, but I did my BA in Theatre Studies at Surrey, but I’ve always been fascinated with writing. As a child, I started writing small, one-act plays when I was at high school. At one stage, one of them as well at school, which was cool, and when I came to the UK to study theatre, I just had that fascination for writing and working in a theatre environment in the future, but I realised that theatre relies a lot on teamwork and you’re dependent a lot on the help of others with staging and I find I enjoy working alone most of the time.

So I felt like poetry worked for me in that way. You know, I get that inspiration at 3am. I bring my laptop, I write and it’s a solitary activity, which you can then share if you want to. With collaborations for example, you can use that writing that you produced alone and work alongside someone else and get that piece of teamwork, which I think is very important. Or you don’t and you just go and share it by yourself, which is fine. Either way, but personal preference, I chose that path because it worked for me.

DT:      It’s interesting to hear you talk about the appeal of being able to work alone, but having seen you almost exclusively perform as part of a collaboration with other  people, I suppose there isn’t a conflict there, is there? It might to seem to some people that it’s a contradiction, but in the initial work and initial writing, it’s nice to have that freedom to work alone and not have the restrictions of having to meet up and be part of all these things.

AP:       With collaborations, especially with poetry, I find that it’s very rare that people would intervene with your work. It’s usually people bringing their works together and not really intervening with each other’s writing or each other’s practice because you have a lot of collaborations with music, with visual arts, etc, so it feels a bit more organic this way, especially if you like having control over your work, which I personally like.

DT:      I don’t want to guide the conversation too much, too early, but we may come on to definitions of poetry a bit later on and what it means to be a poet and write poetry, but at this initial stage, if we ignore those wider questions, in your own personal work, your own personal practice, do you see yourself as a poet that collaborates? Or do you see yourself rather as an artist that collaborates with other artists and you just happen to have already written poetry? Because the performances I’ve seen you in don’t seem to be that rooted in a regular poetry tradition, in this country at least.

AP:       I don’t see myself as one thing, to be honest with you. With each collaboration, it’s like I have a different facet. Most of the time, I see myself as a poet working with someone else. It often happens that I work with people from different disciplines, like recently, one of the performances you attended at the Poetry Café was with two great musicians, Oliver Fox and Sean Tomlin.

So most of the time, I see myself as a poet working with people from different disciplines, but there are times I act as an artist, especially when it comes to visual poems, because I work around visual poetry a lot and I see it more as art, rather than poetry.  For example, when I take part in exhibitions, I see myself more as an artist than a poet. It’s the beauty, especially of experimental, avant-garde poetry, the definition is so broad, you don’t have to feel pressured to squeeze into one box.

DT:      I’ve got something else I want to lead on to, but as a follow-up question, after you finished your BA, at what point did you find this avant-garde slash experimental scene? You’re quite heavily involved with collaborative projects with the same artists and writers and that happens naturally to everyone, we all find our own little niche. What do the kids say, you find your tribe on Twitter or whatever? How quickly did you find that and did you feel you could have done the same thing within theatre, or did it have to happen within poetry?

AP:       I think a lot of it depended on the tutors I worked with in both of my degrees. I really didn’t feel that my tutors in theatre connected me to a wider network outside the university, whereas as soon as I joined the MA of Poetic Practice at Royal Holloway, it was under the leadership of Robert Hampson, who is fantastic, by the way. He was, I think, the key who introduced me to people like Steven Fowler, who I work with regularly, and that network of avant-garde poets.

I know a lot of poets that have stumbled across the scene, but it’s really hard for it to happen organic[ally] without someone grabbing you by the hand and showing you the ropes and introducing you to this network.

DT:      Coming back to what you mentioned before about visual poems and how that’s a big part of your work, I’ve interviewed quite a few people as part of the series whose visual work is as essential to them as their written work or their performance work. It’s obviously a very hard thing to talk about in an audio medium, so on the podcast, we tend to, not brush over it, but it’s hard to explain what you mean without really lengthy descriptions of what a poem might look like.

I think it’s worth talking about because you started by reading two fantastic poems from your pamphlet Astropolis through Haverthorn Press and they are very, very visual and concrete in style and structure and it would be a shame to have any readings and have that book in the room and not talk about the visual structure in some way. Maybe you could explain what the book is, first of all, and how it came about? I think that might give some insight as to what it looks like.

Usually, along with the transcripts that accompany the episode, there are always transcripts of the poems, but maybe I should add images instead, so whoever’s listening could also go over to the transcript now and bring up the pdf and see the images of the poems we’re talking about, it might be useful.

AP:      I started developing Astropolis while I was at the Poetic Practice course actually. That was my final creative project. It’s supposed to be songs from a neo-futurist opera and I was inspired by the Italian Futurists, who I stumbled across while doing the course. They were fascinated with technology and I think technology today is a very vital part of our lives, more than ever. I started researching the neo-futurist term to see whether there were any echoes of the Italian Futurists today and I didn’t really find anything solid in poetry, either a book or someone who focused their practice on that particular movement.

So Astropolis is really an experiment of visual poems that try to define what neo-futurism is and although technology plays a very important part of the project, ecology plays just as important a role because I think now, with climate change, technology can be used in a positive way to try and help reduce some of the ecological damage. I try to express that notion through responding to smart buildings, so neo-futurist architecture.

Each of the poems is trying to embody the structure of that building. So there is a play between architecture and poetry, but it is a project in progress and I would like to explore that notion a bit more, hopefully. I’m starting a PhD in September in neo-futurist poetics, I think that will give me that space to explore Astropolis a bit more and hopefully come up with an even larger work of visual poems.

DT:      One thing I’ve noticed through reading your work and seeing your performances is that there are a lot of imagined and fantasy worlds you’re writing about. We’re not going to talk about Space just yet, I’m going to save that for the second half, but was it necessary for Astropolis to have a very real root for each poem that existed in this world, in order to talk about what an imagined future might be?

AP:       I think that in order to explore what the future might hold, I have to look back at the past and the buildings hopefully help with providing that past element in the work. The book really plays with the past, the present and the future and this is one of the elements I thought might help build that three-dimensional space for the poems.

DT:      I thought it was a really interesting hook as well, to use what are, at the moment, ultra-modern and brand-new buildings, but placing them, because the book is written at what point in the future?

AP:       So 2092.

DT:      2092, so then they suddenly become historical artefacts, even though to us, they are ultra-modern. It was an interesting starting point and as a bit of further clarification, each poem uses a different building from around the world. Why do you think that ecology and the environment play such a big role in the work of avant-garde writers at the moment? It seems to me that environmental issues are reflected far more heavily in the experimental writing I’ve seen than in more mainstream stuff.

AP:       That’s an interesting question, actually. Straightaway in my head, I’m identifying all these really interesting, experimental poets, who work around ecology, like Sarah Cave or Julia Rose Lewis. Probably, it’s because of the form of experimental poetry, although a lot of these writers don’t focus on the visual element. I do think the form of concrete poems helps express notions a bit better.

DT:      Do you think it feeds into this attraction to collaboration as well? I’m highly aware I might be accusing mainstream poets of not caring, and that is not what I’m doing, but perhaps through that desire to collaborate with other artists and be part of a wider community, it’s quite natural that it then links your work into thinking about being part of a community. Your practice itself is not…it seems to be with experimental writers that their practice is very rarely inward-looking, which is quite in mode at the moment, it’s quite fashionable for more mainstream poetry.

AP:       I agree with you, in a sense. Straightaway, I’m thinking of the European Poetry Festival, the last one that happened in April. There were quite a few poets that performed collaborative pieces around eco-poetry. All I’m thinking is Vilde Valerie Bjerke Torset for example, that literally pulled apart pots of Basil, which was quite an interesting image. I definitely think these outward notion of collaboration probably helps target subjects that concern us all and affect the community. Climate change, that multiplicity of voices is quite beautiful. That’s probably why you see more eco-poetry in avant-garde poetry at the moment. Maybe. That’s just my idea.

DT:      Now would be a good time for a second reading.

AP:       I’m going to read an extract from my neo-futurist manifesto, which was commissioned by Sidekick Books and was developed for their No, Robot, No anthology. It’s amazing, please go get a copy.

[download transcripts for poems]

 DT:      Two initials points come into my head. Because we said we were saving the reality of Space and what exists outside this planet until the second half, we should start there. As we established in the first half of this conversation, or at least established our own beliefs between the two of us about the proliferation of ecologically-minded poetry within the avant-garde and how we writers, because I put myself in that circle of writers as well, if we’re concerned with our place on this planet and amongst other human beings, your writing seems to take a leap outside that atmosphere, and consider where we are all sitting in the galaxy and wider universe, I was wondering, as I started the conversation with ‘Why poetry?’ maybe we should say ‘Why space?’

AP:       Because I think Space is the next stage and it is going to happen at some point, I don’t know when, but it is going to happen, moving to exo-planets and many scientists, like Stephen Hawking, for example, he was the one that predicted human race eventually moving to exo-planets, which is quite a fascinating idea. I really wish I lived at this point where we were packing our bags and moving to Mars. I wouldn’t mind the location, it’s this exciting space, planet in Outer Space. How would you feel about moving to Space?

DT:      I don’t spend that much time thinking about Space, but I got a bit distracted during your answer. I was at a talk recently, hosted by the fantastic writer Isabel Waidner, and they were talking about how during the 80s, splits between different kinds of literature became drawn out via class and educational divide and how sci-fi was seen as a lower form of writing and how it was deemed that was what you would write if you failed at university, imagining what it was like.

Coming very much from a working-class background, it surprised me because I had no interest in sci-fi or anything like that at all, but it’s also interesting to think about those class distinctions between experimental and more mainstream literature. I think what I’m concerned with is that I’m not against moving somewhere else, I’m just hoping we haven’t messed things up so much that we have to. It brings up ideas of what utopia might be and whether there’s just no chance of that, here.

It does seem for a lot of experimental writers, this idea of imagining some sort of utopia seems to weight quite heavily in people’s work and that’s maybe reflecting the damage and why they’re so obsessed with the damage that’s happening now to the planet.

AP:       It’s been a very popular subject. Straightaway, I’m thinking of Burning House Press and how they recently published an issue edited by Paul Hawking, which was around the future and space. There were some really lovely contributions to that issue. With No, Robot, No! anthology, there is a very big selection of writers concerned with the future, I suppose. I don’t know whether the political situation at the moment gives you an extra incentive to try and imagine how things are going to be in the future.

Obviously, with my work, I’ve gone too far away from the immediate future. That is hopefully something that concerns a lot of people at the moment and might be interesting for readers out there.

DT:      The second thing I was thinking as you were reading that, whilst I put myself into the same writing tradition as you, one thing I’ve never been able to get my head around is why the avant garde are so obsessed with manifestos. Even using them like a crux to build an idea around, regardless of whether you believe what you just read is an actual manifesto that you wish people would follow, this idea of being instructive as to how people should think about the world around them. I’ve always found it quite strange, this openness and the liberalism that’s inherent in experimentation, but then it often comes with a list of instructions.

AP:       Yeah, probably because a lot of conceptual poetry is a series of instructions. I look back at myself and the way I produce some of my poetry, by setting rules and going out there and following those rules to the very end. That’s probably why. A lot of avant-garde artists do like restricting themselves to a box, to be able to then escape it, in a way. I’m not speaking for everyone, that’s just my experience. I love instructions and I like a good manifesto as well. I’m not saying that my manifesto is good, but it’s interesting, it’s a form of prose I really enjoy.

DT:      You definitely see the attraction you have towards constraints in your writing come through your two pamphlets from Sampson Low, Almost A Dream and Almost A Nightmare. It might be a natural point to start talking about those two small booklets as well. I’m not going to explain your own work to you. Maybe you could tell me and the listeners about the form and the structure and what role musical theory and notation play in how these two booklets were put together.

AP:       So I would say with both Almost A Dream and Almost A Nightmare,  they are what I call collaging poems. Not all of them. The one I read on A Poem A Week last week, Heliolatry, it was a bit more language-focused, but a lot of the others are comprised of lines, which most of the time I have Googled or noted down. The restriction I set around those, to answer your question, so with Almost A Nightmare, I try to focus around language, about the Moonlight Sonata, the third movement, then text around the Great Fire of London and then sexual texts and try to extract language from sources that were discussing these three themes and bring them together to create something hopefully unique.

With Almost A Dream, I was a bit more free in the process of making them and although a lot of them are collaging poems, their sense of instruction wasn’t as strong. But I think a great example of what you’ve just said was a book that’s going to be published by Guillemot Press in September called Stargazing, which I have restricted myself to a small window of a set number of lines and the whole book is comprised of ‘aperture’ poems, which fall into a very simple, clean square and that’s probably the most restrictions that I’ve set to myself. Usually, although I set a list of instructions while creating poetry, nothing was as restrictive as these aperture poems.

DT:      So that square you’ve decided to restrict yourself to, is that a void into which you’re writing or are you using that open square to select smaller pieces of writing from a larger body?

AP:       A lot of the writing within that square space is supposed to be part of a larger text. It’s a bit like a black-out poem in reverse, if that makes sense, but metaphorically, it’s supposed to be a window through which you watch the sky at night and the way then the stars start to come together and create images, so I think the form works with the content because the poems are around the story of Icarus and Daedalus, which many of the listeners might know about. Yes, I do think form helps bring the content alive.

DT:      So this next book is your own little poetic telescope, is it? You’re scanning the sky with it.

AP:       That’s a great way to describe it, yes.

DT:      I really like that, I’ve always been attracted to artworks where the majority of the work is obscured and you can only view parts at a time. It’s quite interesting this point, also, I suppose that’s ultimately where the whole conversation is revolving, it’s nice that it’s come up at this point, how much of your work is informed by the form and that it’s not only a very interesting way to display the work at the end, it’s a vital part of the construction of the work as well.

AP:      Yes, 100%. Form for me is sometimes more important than content. Maybe it’s because I have an inclination towards visual art. Inclination’s not really the right word, probably a taste for visual art and the aesthetic is very important for me. I usually try and marry those two flavours of form and content.

DT:      It’s nice to come across a person’s work who’s clearly happy to live on the boundaries and intersections of two ways of working and not being afraid of… You hear a lot from artists about not wanting to be pigeon-holed between one thing and the other, but that’s not quite the same thing as being happy to live in the gaps between as well. I think sometimes that can be considered as a negative view or interpretation of your work, or somebody’s work, but it’s quite nice when you see people fully embrace it like you do with your work. It’s visual and it’s literary and it’s performance and what comes out at the end is what it is and it’s nice to see you stand by it and be quite proud of what it is at the end of it.

AP:       Thank you. Yes, for me, it’s very important to keep yourself open to things. I think with the restriction of performing visual poems, with your question, that popped up in my head straightaway, some people may be wary of creating visual pieces because if they’re strong performers, I think that freedom of expression sometimes opens doors you didn’t know existed. What I found with my visual work, at first my worry was how do I perform these?

At the launch of Astropolis last year, actually it was last year to the day at the Peckham Pelican, my worry was how do I perform these poems? I have to fill a 15-minute reading slot and how do I do that? That opened a whole door of me thinking of creating object poems and bringing those on stage, rather than me trying to extract some of the lines from the visual poem, which wouldn’t really work because the form was just as important as the content for those poems.

It opened that door for me to think of object poetry and the use of props to be able to create that same aesthetic that you’re trying to portray on the page. I would definitely encourage people to think of form as well, because it’s quite liberating.

DT:      Something I’ve been thinking about a lot with my own writing is how to embrace the contradictions in what I think about because it’s quite interesting, in the last 10 or 15 minutes hear you talk about your love for instructions and constraints and finish by talking about freedom to use props and do whatever you want. I think it’s nice to come to a point where you realise that these contradictions are integral to what you do.

I think I’ve spent a lot of my writing trying to define one way that I think about things and that just isn’t true, that isn’t how I live my life. I don’t have one way of thinking about  anything in life, I don’t know why it should be part of the way I write as well. I’m not going to say too much more because I’m going to end up plugging my own writing and that’s not what I’m here for. Unfortunately, we’ve come to the end of the conversation. Thank you so much for joining me, it’s been really fascinating.

AP:       It has been and thank you so much for the invitation, it’s been great.

DT:      We’re going to finish with a third and final reading.

AP:       Since we’ve been talking about restrictions in writing and we mentioned Stargazing, which is going to be out by Guillemot Press in September, I thought I might share with you some of the poems from the book.

Outro:

DT:      Hello again. You stuck with us to the end. Grab yourself a biscuit as a reward, or a cookie or whatever. That was the wonderful Astra Papachristodoulou. Do yourself a favour and go and see her perform if you get the chance or at the very least, check her out on You Tube. If you’d like to get yourself one of the pamphlets, you can buy Astropolis from Haverthorn Press, both Almost A Nightmare and Almost A Dream from Sampson and Low. As you heard at the end there, her latest will be Stargazing, out through Guillemot Press later this year. Astra has a fantastic page on her website, dedicated to her publications, so I’ll link to that in this episode description and I’ll also link to the next couple of things I’m going to mention.

As we’re talking of experimental poetry pamphlets, my wife Lizzy and I just published a collection of 10 poems by me and 10 accompanying illustrations by her. It’s called 10 Cups of Coffee and you can get yourself a copy through Hesterglock Press.

If it’s of interest, I was recently interviewed by Naomi Woddis for her show The Two Of Us, in which she talks to writers and artists about how they manage their mental health. We chatted mainly about how writing poetry and producing this podcast both impact and help my mental wellbeing. I really enjoyed the chat, but I think I will always remain too embarrassed to listen to the recording. You can do that for me. Let me know what you think.

I think that’s it for episode 121. You can continue to follow us on our website, lunarpoetrypodcasts.com, at Lunar Poetry Podcasts on Facebook and Instagram, @silent_tongue and @apoemaweek on Twitter.

Until episode 122 and the autumn, be good to yourselves.

End of transcript.