Skip to main content

A Brief Essay by Derek Beaulieu

The manner/s of speaking


As founder and editor-in-chief of The Queen Street Quarterly, Suzanne Zelazo has filled its pages with a tight understanding of both lyrical and radical forms of writing. She has demonstrated an ability to combine two differing forms into a single magazine’s pages in such a way as to draw the similarities and commonalities forward. The QSQ rarely has editorial statements or an overt stated position, instead it leaves the editors’ decision-making process stated solely in what work is included. Zelazo’s editing is presented as a reading, a continuous documentation, a means of presenting a manner of speaking – a parlour for current poetics and prosody.
In Parlance, Zelazo’s first book of poetry, she parleys this engagement with writing and reading into a series of dialogues and responses, each uniquely her own. Her “taxonomy of the past” reacts to a community of writers, friends, family, teachers, mentors. Zelazo, instead of struggling against an anxiety of influence – where the “implication of verse” stilts production – has crafted her way through the social aspect of writing. The “prefix generation” of “post-” writers, of hyphenated voices, are engaged with and embraced – brought close into the texts themselves. Zelazo engages with her contemporaries and with Virginia Woolf whose To the Lighthouse is reworked as a phrase-based long poem by removing the prosaic framework of the novel and manipulating the vocabulary into a poetic form: “now the edges accomplished flattery / their woven community would speak.” The warp of community is held in tension by Zelazo’s weft, an independent thread woven through and joined.  
Zelazo’s community is woven into her texts (“we are an accompaniment”), fibres within a tight weave. The edges may be “accomplished flattery” but the pattern of the weave itself is uniquely her own.
By “sitting on the phrase” Zelazo concentrates on the swerve between phrases, the clinamen in the “fold, a stitch, dislocate. Promiscuous trick of the eye. Fetish.” Parlance’s grammar slows the reader, concentrates on the space and the shift between phrases and sentence, dwelling in the pause and full stop of composition. Here the sentence is both a medium of construction and a term; a length of service. The conversation of Parlance dwells in the synonymity of sentence and period.

Comments

Marshall said…
Thank you for this great essay. Really. I think I'll start reading Parlanco tonight. Seems like a good piece of writing to me.

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".