Sunday, April 26, 2020

Mini Reviews for April 20-26, 2020

Quarantine, Week 7: Increasingly unsure of the days of the week.

Movies

The Turning (2020)
I lost interest in this pretty quickly when it became clear that the movie was going to do absolutely nothing with the rather exquisite set. Just watch The Innocents if you want to see a great film adaptation of Turn of the Screw. But then oh boy, did the last five minutes pull in my attention again: I don't think I've ever seen a mainstream film released by a major studio have such a flabbergastingly fumbled ending. Either the movie thinks that it can evoke the rich ambiguity of James's novel by throwing in a bunch of incomprehensible, out-of-context plot twists and edits, or else the production team just got tired of the whole project and just arbitrarily rolled the credits after splicing in all the remaining footage they had. Either way, it's incredibly, fascinatingly dumb, and I want to know the backstory. Grade: C-

Democrats (2014)
I feel extreme skepticism about a movie like this—a documentary by a Western filmmaker about political turmoil under an aging Marxist state in a post-colonial country. Having literally no knowledge of Zimbabwe's history or politics, I really don't know exactly how much of that skepticism is valid with regards to this movie's stance on the contentious creation of Zimbabwe's new constitution following its 2008 election, though there are a few things raising major red flags for me (esp. the uncritical way to which it gestures toward "international intervention" in Zimbabwe's politics from the West). So who knows how useful this documentary is at actually documenting the broader political realities of Zimbabwe. All that being said, as a generalized take on a very specific kind of political activity (in this case, the drafting of a national constitution), this movie is stupendous, almost entirely on the virtues of the access granted to its film team. I'm not sure if we've ever gotten this intimate of a cinematic document on the shaping of a nation's central laws: the camera crew of this documentary were somehow allowed to sit in the room as representatives from the ruling political party and the opposition party edit and collaborate and shout at each other over specific pieces of the constitutional drafts, along the way showing the push and pull between democratic/populist energy and the inertia of a political establishment. It's fascinating stuff, and I gladly would have watched a 4-hour Wiseman-style documentary with just the camera stuck in those negotiation rooms rather than the rather brisk 90 minutes that this movie is. Grade: B


Holy Smoke (1999)
I was not a huge fan of the setup—Indian cult? fake terminal illness?—but man oh man does this movie cook when it's just Harvey Keitel and Kate Winslet locking horns in a psychosexual battle of wills. As in her similarly dismissed In the Cut, Jane Campion takes this movie to some really fearless places that are deeply uncomfortable, and the results are some fascinating interrogations of power and human desire. But unlike In the Cut (and virtually every other Campion feature), this movie is actually very funny on top of all that. So as it turns out, this whole narrative of how Campion lost her way at the turn of the millennium and then found it again with Bright Star is just a bunch of noise, and honestly, Bright Star is maybe my second-least-favorite Campion feature after Portrait of a Lady. I wanna see more of this, Jane! Grade: B+

Meeting People Is Easy (1998)
Maybe this is less true now that Radiohead have become de-facto elder statesmen of rock and their whole ethos has more or less stabilized since the OK Computer-->Kid A-->Amnesiac cycle, but I definitely remember a long period of time when the music press, as much as they praised their albums, somewhat dismissed the individuals in the group as a bunch of antisocial grumps. Perhaps they are antisocial and grumpy, but golly, I'd be too if I had to endure interviewer after interviewer lob the most inane questions and comments at me. Questions like, I kid you not, "Is OK Computer rock music?", and comments like, "This seems like music for wrist-cutters." I've heard people say that Meeting People Is Easy isn't really a very good tour documentary, and it's true that its lo-fi, impressionistic, at-times inscrutably garbled style is at odds with giving us good concert footage (though fans will still be treated to more or less straightforward concert gems like early renditions of "Nude" and "Life in a Glasshouse"). But when it comes to rendering the subjective experience of the hell that is doing a world tour and a million interviews with skeptical, ham-fisted journalists, this movie rocks. The fatigue and disorientation Meeting People Is Easy evokes is compelling, and to give us the catharsis of seeing the cool spectacle of Radiohead bringing down the house with "Paranoid Android" or something would probably have been antithetical to that subjective effect. Grade: B

Dirty Harry (1971)
I was kind of thinking that the "fascist-lite" allegations against this movie were overblown, given that it was unfolding like a more-or-less conventional and honestly kind of dull "loose cannon"/urban apocalypse cop movie—yes, I realize this was basically the first, but just because you're the first to promote problematic mythology doesn't absolve you of the problematic mythology, especially if you're not going to be interesting about it. But then we get to the scene when Harry tells the DA of San Francisco that the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution are "wrong," and I was like, "Ohhhh... I see what people are talking about..." Anyway, this movie picks up as it gets more outlandish near the end: e.g. Harry intentionally crashes a school bus full of kids in order to catch the Zodiac Killer. Don't worry; all the kids are okay. I would be interested in seeing a horror/dark-comedy remake in which all the ridiculously risky gambits Harry makes in this movie actually don't pay off, and Harry is just some deranged cop with stern-dad vibes who violated people's rights, shot a hostage, and killed a school bus's worth of children, because this is nuts. "Loose cannon" indeed. Grade: C

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)
Nobody told me that the opening 15 minutes are virtually identical to the opening of Get Out, though I'd been plenty warned that this movie is the epitome of "I would have voted for Obama a third time" cinema. It's also stagey and largely boring, full of impossible people (Spencer Tracy's character owns a major newspaper? Sidney Poitier's character is the assistant director of the World Health Organization??) walking through shallow, well-intentioned sanctimony. Most of what makes the parts that aren't boring interesting is a kind of cultural artifact perspective: for example, the movie's... interesting understanding of what late '60s rock and roll is. But the acting in this movie is also stellar and makes the film way more watchable than it would have been otherwise. No surprise given the presence of Poitier (who, per usual, does God's work of breathing real life into respectability politics' wet dream) and Tracy/Hepburn—but golly, Tracy and Hepburn are magnificent together here, and the best parts of the movie by far are the ones they share together, particularly the mid-movie drive where they get ice cream (a real shame Tracy wasn't alive for On Golden Pond, because their relationship here has a lot of the same energy and might have been able to save that movie from its own saccharine). The same, I'm afraid, can't be said for Hepburn's niece, Katharine Houghton, who is, both as written and acted, one of the most vapid screen presences I've seen in a while. Grade: C

She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)
Somewhat difficult for me to swallow the lionizing of the U.S. Cavalry and General Custer specifically (Michael Bluth looks in bag labeled *Old Hollywood Western*: "I don't know what I expected"), even more difficult considering that the whole plotting with the cavalry mission against the Indians is right up there with the love triangle as the most tedious part of the movie. But Lord have mercy, this movie is probably the best use of Technicolor of the 1940s, and John Wayne gives a legitimately great performance and absolutely rocks that mustache. Some really great character acting from the guy who plays Sgt. Quincannon (Victor McLaglen), too. I kinda wish this whole movie was just a wistful hangout dramedy with Wayne and McLaglen's characters just futzing around the fort as they contemplate their upcoming retirement. The parts of the movie that are that are top-tier. Grade: B

I talked about this movie with some smart folks on the Cinematary podcast—if you're interested, you can listen here!

Television

Better Call Saul, Season 5 (2020)
With Jimmy McGill having fully transformed into Saul Goodman (thus completing the show's prequel arc), Better Call Saul could have easily just called it a day, giving itself over completely to place-setting for Breaking Bad. But that's not what Better Call Saul does, blessedly. Instead, as we watch Jimmy tumble into the craven abyss of his alter ego, we see him grasping frantically at those around him, and what Season 5 becomes is something of a battle for the soul of Kim Wexler. It has, in short, pivoted from the Greek tragedy of its first season to full-on Shakespearean tragedy now. In doing so, the show finds some of its most conventionally exciting plotting in a couple seasons, bolstered by some incredibly tense setpieces as well as some legitimately stomach-turning character work. Alongside a newfound purpose for Nacho (he gets his best arc in seasons) as well as a renewed relevance of Mike (who is much more organically integrated into the story than last season), Season 5 is Better Call Saul at the top of its game. Really great stuff. Grade: A

Books

Lemony Snicket: The Unauthorized Autobiography by Lemony Snicket (2002)
Basically a book-length indulgence in A Series of Unfortunate Events's postmodern affectations. Some of it is hilariously bewildering, most notably the introduction, in which there are four nested narrations and circular definitions; other parts are puzzles, where you have to piece together underlined words to get codes and morsels of information relevant to unraveling the intentionally opaque mysteries of the main series; other parts are just kind of inscrutable and odd, like the series of photos near the end with incomplete captions. There's not a lot of actual substance here once you get past the literary and linguistic games, and there's nothing as inspired as the best moments of the main series. But it is still pretty funny on a moment-by-moment basis, and I remain impressed and somewhat gobsmacked that Snicket/Handler was able to publish the equivalent of a Danielewski or Nabokov novel for kids. Madness. Grade: B

Christine by Stephen King (1983)
One of the weaker novels from Stephen King's golden era, if you ask me. It's overlong, misanthropic (and often specifically misogynist), and doesn't find a real emotional core in its characters until near the end. Plus, it does this irritating thing (that admittedly is also true of The Shining) where it's crystal clear exactly where this is going at least a hundred pages from the end, making the lead-up to the climax frustratingly slow rather than simmeringly intense. It's not without its charms, though: there's a great sense of geography here—it's the rare King book not set in Maine, but its Pennsylvania small-town setting is vividly evoked. Also, King's use of rock and roll car lyrics works really well to highlight the dually liberating and sinister undercurrents of that mythology, and as an avowed ally of public transit and a sworn enemy of personal vehicle ownership, I do get a kick out of the idea that car ownership is basically a Faustian deal with a demon. Still, that's not enough to buoy this book completely for me. Grade: C+

Sunday, April 19, 2020

Mini Reviews for April 13-19, 2020

Quarantine, Week 6: Hey, at least I did an interview! With a really good poet and friend! Read it here if you missed it.

Movies

Band of Robbers (2015)
Pretty dumb. Advertises itself as a modern-day-set adaptation of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn—in reality, it's 97% Tom Sawyer, with the only part from Huckleberry Finn being that bit at the end of the book that hardly anybody likes where Tom impersonates Sid to try to save Jim (Jorge here). The movie somehow simultaneously treats its story less seriously but also less irreverently than Twain's original, and the whole thing has a major case of Early2010sitis, full of low-rent Wes Andersonisms and forced twee. Parts of this were amusing, but on the whole, it's a pretty shoddy effort. Do you want to see Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn (and Joe Harper—hey, good to see that dude get a shout-out for once) drinking craft beer? Then by all means, hit this movie up before it leaves Netflix. Grade: C

The Devil's Rejects (2005)
A pointedly and unbelievably cruel movie, the hicksploitation of something like The Hills Have Eyes or (less this time around than in the original House of 1,000 Corpses) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre blown out to the grand scope of America itself, a pointedly and unbelievably cruel country if there ever was one. It's an interesting and often compelling decision of Zombie's to refuse mythologizing its central Bonnie-and-Clyde-esque clan, who spend the majority of the movie literally torturing the people they encounter. We Americans love the idea of our outlaws, but this movie makes hay out of the way that that that love is a fair-weather facade that drops the moment we're confronted with outlawism's brutal realities. I'm not sure Zombie or this movie really do much to recognize that, for example, the sexual violence perpetrated by its central family is as totemic as the psychotic cop's embodiment of the faux-respectable post-'70s American Establishment, and I'm hesitant to embrace sincerely the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic that I've seen some people use when talking about the purportedly melancholy ending—or maybe the movie does recognize it, and the famous "Free Bird" finale is just a winking, ironic piece of nihilism showing one American demon brutalizing another. My relatively middle-of-the-road rating speaks to the fact that I'm not really that interested in the way the movie lingers lasciviously over this brutality, but the fact that I am thinking about it this much speaks volumes about how rich this movie can be at times. Also, God, please let me become that Groucho Marx enthusiast when I grow up. Grade: B

Joker (2019)
I liked it—just wanted to make that clear before I get into a list of complaints. I probably made a mistake by putting off seeing Joker for as long as I did, as almost every shot, it seems, I had already seen in some awards-season highlight reel. That said, it probably would have felt familiar anyway, since (as has been widely broadcast) this movie is basically conceived as the intersection of King of Comedy and Taxi Driver within an alternate DC universe. I don't know that Joker does much that those two movies don't already do other than to throw a coat of class warfare over the whole thing, a coat that begins well enough (the defunding of social services as a catalyst for social unrest and individual misery, for example) but kind of feels thin by the end, as the movie, for as much as its "You get what you deserve!" finale gestures toward a leftist rage, takes on a pretty dim view of the proletariat, presenting them as society's mindless id held in sway by a nihilistic icon (another example: the garbage collection strike is multiple times blamed for Gotham's filthy condition rather than whatever poor wages and working conditions these folks are presumably striking about). I did get a chuckle out of the Thomas Wayne / Mike Bloomberg parallels ("anti-rich sentiments!"), though speaking of that, what ultimately happens with the Wayne subplot feels merely like a DC genre obligation, which is disappointing for a movie loudly declaring itself as a work not beholden to the same rules as other superhero movies, and I would have liked to see something more unpredictable play out there; the same goes for the movie's setting in the early 1980s, which feels more like an impulse to appear within the same world as the Scorsese movies it's referencing than an artistically vital choice of its own—it's obviously futile to imagine versions of movies we never got, but I can think of a much more cutting iteration of Joker set in a gentrifying, post-Giuliani (or whatever the DC version of Giuliani is) Gotham, where the class issues are no less urgent but also significantly more papered over by the facade of the ruling class. But anyway, I did begin this review by saying I liked this movie, and I do; for as much as this movie's reach exceeds its grasp regarding all the above issues, it works tremendously as a character study. Joker understands the Joker as a human being more so than any other movie iteration of the character has, and the combination of Joaquin Phoenix's performance and the writing create a richly rendered person whose journey feels true. As much as I don't think the movie quite succeeds in scaling up the Arthur's personal issues to society-wide movements, I think it works great in the opposite direction, showing how broader social movements have personal effects on Arthur himself—it's been done before (again, Taxi Driver, King of Comedy), but Joker does a good job of showing how the Great Society's collapse manifests itself on the psychology of those already living on the margins, and his descent into destructive nihilism is entirely convincing, an effect that I don't think was necessarily a sure thing, even mimicking the movies it does. To end this scattered review on a different note: for as much as this movie's been talked to death in the discourse, I've not seen a ton of discussion about the score by Hildur Guðnadóttir, which is really solid and probably at least as worthy of acclaim as the Phoenix performance most people centered on. I don't know if I'd put it above Little Women's score (probably my pick of the Academy Award nominees), but there's definitely no shame in the Oscars picking this one. Grade: B

The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
Starts really good with some strong "A Good Man Is Hard to Find" vibes before basically settling into a pretty typical grindhouse/exploitation second half. The movie does such a good job of establishing the "normal" family as a thoroughly unlikable locus of white, middle-class, anti-rural entitlement that it's really hard for me to get invested in those same people defeating the mutant hillbillies (who have, moreover, clearly seen the butt-end of the U.S. government a la nuclear testing, eminent domain, etc.). Not really sure how to reconcile those two halves, but maybe that's part of the point, I dunno. Anyway, pieces of this are strong enough that I'm landing positive on the whole. Grade: B


God Told Me To (1976)
An utterly deranged police procedural turned sci-fi pulp turned ecstatic messianic dystopia. Starts as a relatively straightforward investigation of mass killings whose perpetrators claim to be directed by God, and then becomes something else entirely very quickly, something wild and unclassifiable, with shades of The Last Temptation of Christ and preemptive shades of David Lynch. It does not—I repeat, does not—hang together on a moment by moment basis, with scene transitions often feeling like they leave out narrative in between. And it has a, to be charitable, problematic posture toward its African-American characters. But I also can't think of a movie prior to this one that has a more innovative and cosmic-minded approach to the crime thriller format except maybe Kiss Me Deadly. Whacked-out, messy, weirdly compelling. Grade: A-

Season of the Witch (1972)
I started laughing when Donovan's "Season of the Witch" started playing at one point, because it's such a hilariously on-the-nose choice to have that song play in a movie of the same name at the precise moment when the main character is getting into witchcraft. This became less funny when I found out that the movie's original title was Hungry Wives and was marketed as a softcore film ("Caviar in the kitchen, nothing in the bedroom"), but then again, that's funny in its own way, because this movie barely has any nudity and is mostly concerned with suburban couples at dinner parties arguing about if anyone is going to hurry up and smoke some weed already—very sexy, ya know. So I get that this movie was kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place w/r/t the title, but then again, the fact that the movie stuck between the rock and the hard place is a snore to begin with couldn't have helped. Sorry, George A. Romero. You make good movies—just not this one. Grade: C

Images (1972)
In a world where Repulsion exists, I guess it's not surprising that this has a reputation as something of an also-ran. But it is really good (though admittedly, not Repulsion good), anchored by a deliriously off-brand John Williams score (Academy Award nominated), some really tremendous editing by Graeme Clifford, as well as a dynamite central performance by Susannah York, without any of which the movie wouldn't have worked at all. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the story—there's a lot regarding coercive men as well as the collateral damage of York's character's self-destructive tendencies, but I'm not particularly interested in the whole "woman has crippling guilt over infidelity" angle, which is what this movie is going for probably 50% of the time. But the whole package is freaky and disorienting enough that I'm willing to put style over substance if I have to. Altman's reputation is kind of staked on his use of shaggy, improv-y ensemble pieces, but between this and 3 Women, I think there's ample evidence that he was at least as good at assembling meticulously planned cinematic work, too. Grade: B+

Television

Barry, Season 1 (2018)
I was skeptical of Barry at first; "aspiring actor moonlights as a hitman" sounds like an unintentional parody of the typical post-Breaking Bad "Peak TV" series, and the first couple episodes didn't really make me feel more confident, either, as they're basically the most obvious way to play out that premise. But then it gets good. It's not that Barry does something radically different from what its premise promises—this is exactly that story. But the seriousness and dramatic complexity with which the show ultimately bears out the balls set in motion by its first couple episodes lend Barry a terrific weight, and as the show makes abundantly clear by having its last several episodes revolve around a stage performance of Macbeth, what Barry is ultimately going for (and ultimately succeeds at being) is Shakespearean tragedy. The final two episodes are as breathtaking and bleak as Act V of Macbeth, and in fact, I can't really think of a TV show that's been as successful at this format since Breaking Bad itself. Grade: A-

Music

Paul Simon - Stranger to Stranger (2016)
Paul Simon has, alongside Randy Newman, unobtrusively remained one of the more vital Boomer legacy artists still making new material, and 2016's Stranger to Stranger is probably the best of his legacy period. A quiet, quietly powerful rumination on love, class, despair, and hope, Stranger to Stranger finds Simon with some of his cleanest melodies of recent years, as well as some of his sharpest lyrical turns. Early in the record, he sings that "most obits are mixed reviews," and he's sure to get one when the inevitable happens (criticisms of cultural appropriation will no less dog this album than his earlier efforts); but for the positive portions of the eulogies, I hope people remember this record. Grade: A-

Monday, April 13, 2020

Interview: Whitney Rio-Ross

Whitney Rio-Ross

Whitney and I met at Union University, the small Baptist university where we both got our undergraduate degrees in English. We ran in a lot of the same circles there, and not just with our English classes: we were paired up several years in a row for a mentoring program called Life Groups (hey, as I said, it was a Baptist university), and we both were staff members on The Torch, the school's literary magazine.

But I think anyone who knew both of us back then probably now remembers Whitney much better, and that's not false modesty—as much as this can be true of someone with extremely academic interests in the humanities, Whitney was a star. She went on to become the editor in chief of The Torch and part of the leadership of Life Groups, in addition to completing a whole second major (in philosophy—ya know, easy stuff); when we graduated, she was then accepted to Yale Divinity School, where she got a dual degree in religion and literature. She's now teaching literature at Trevecca Nazarene University in Nashville. All of this is a long way of saying that Whitney is one of the smartest people I know (in addition to being thoughtful and kind and just an all-around great person).

Somewhere along the line, she also became a great writer, too, which is why I'm interviewing her here. In college, I remember her crafting some sharp pieces of creative nonfiction, and since then, she's really jumped head-first into writing; Whitney's a poet and a darn good one at that. In fact, her first chapbook of poetry, Birthmarks, just came out in the midst of all our COVID-19 pandemonium. At the time I conducted this interview, I hadn't yet read Birthmarks, but I have now—it's good stuff, folks! You can buy it here, if you're interested.

Anyway, you can read the interview below. We talk about teaching, faith, Evangelicalism, poetry in general, and her poetry in particular; as you'd expect, she has smart things to say, and I hope you enjoy the conversation.


Interview

Michael: What’s your history with poetry? I know that you and I in college both got degrees in literature—did it start there?

Whitney: I really started writing poetry mostly after graduate school. In college, I always said I was never going to write poetry because I liked it too much and didn’t want to screw it up. But then I took some prose writing classes in grad school and realized that I was drawn more and more toward writing poetry.

M: Was there any particular reason for your shift?

W: Well, a teacher at Union was teaching an advanced poetry class, and she asked me and a couple others who had graduated a few years before to participate because it was such a small class. And she said, “So you will bring in some poems.” And I thought, “Oh. I don’t have any of those, really.”

M: Is this when you were currently a master’s student?

W: After. I had just written a few poems before that, not anything really serious, so that literally forced me to write poetry.

M: Obviously you had read poetry before for your bachelor’s degree, but was poetry something that you were always drawn to to read? I feel like now poetry isn’t something that people tend to casually get into as much as in centuries gone by.

W: I started reading poetry pretty intensely during my freshman year of college. I got really into contemporary poetry as I learned that there are poets out there who are living who are doing awesome stuff, so I read a lot in college, and that continued through grad school.

M: Let’s pivot to your own poetry. I’ve read several of your poems over the years, and then you sent me six prior to this interview, so those are the ones I’m most familiar with at this point. Probably the most surface-level observation you could make about these poems is that a lot of them are centered around the Christian faith, which makes sense; your degree from Yale was a combined theology and literature degree, right?

W: Yeah, it was a dual degree in religion and literature.

M: Okay, so biographically, it makes sense that you’d write about faith. Can you could explain how you conceive of the relationship between your poetry and your faith?

W: I think anybody’s writing or art is going to reflect the mythology that they have working in their lives. So whatever your faith is (or lack of faith), what your beliefs are—it’s going to show up in anything that you make. And I think we all have beliefs, even if we don’t believe in a god. That’s been such a big part of my life that it’s actually hard to avoid in writing. I’ve tried, and it’s really hard.

M: Specifically, at least in the ones you sent me, you have this presence of biblical matriarchs like Eve and Esther. Is there anything about those figures as opposed to others that you’re drawn to? The Christian mythology is huge, as far as what you can draw on, but at least in the poems you sent me, Eve is mentioned twice, and you’ve got Proverbs 31 and Esther and a few others.

W: Well, my chapbook is all based on biblical matriarchs. I think I was most drawn to that because, especially growing up in the Evangelical South, I heard a lot of terrible takes on women in the Bible and women in theology. As a part of a Christian Studies program at a pretty sexist university, I had to deal with a lot of crap about what females meant in the study of theology and what females in the Bible represented, so I needed to explore those ideas for myself during and after college. I think they show up in my poetry because that’s kind of what I was thinking about for a few years.

M: You mentioned Evangelicalism, which was something I was going to pivot to. You have at least a couple of the poems among the ones I read that deal with Evangelicalism. I’m thinking specifically of “The Seminarian Translates Proverbs 31” and also “Our Mothers Spoke of Apocalypses.” Both of those, to at least some degree, seem to be making a criticism of certain ideologies or habits of Evangelicalism. Do you feel bitter about Evangelicalism? I sometimes find that I get bitter if I write about Evangelicalism. What’s your stance toward that history?

W: I definitely do feel some bitterness. It took a lot of healing to get past some of the damage that a lot of those teachings created for both me and my friends who also came out of very harsh Evangelicalism. I’ve seen that writing about it has actually helped me work through some of that bitterness, so that’s been weirdly therapeutic. I didn’t start writing those poems because of that; it just somehow happened while I was looking at those topics.

M: Would you consider yourself outside of Evangelicalism now?

W: Yeah.

M: Is there anything you’ve held onto from that upbringing? We’ve talked about feeling bitter, but are there any positive things you’ve kept from it?

W: I love that I know so much about the Bible. Even though some of the ways that it was taught and some of the takes people had on it were really bad, it’s really cool to know so much of that story and to engage with so much of it, artistically or not artistically.

M: Is poetry pretty much your main artistic engagement with the Bible?

W: It is. I started out more just writing essays, but I’ve gone more to poetry. I still write some essays, though.

M: Going back to your poems themselves, what can you tell me about that chapbook?

W: It is thematically unified in terms of focusing on female characters who I think get either the worst reputations or the smallest roles in the Bible. They’re all put into contemporary situations in the poems; sometimes those have to do with the biblical narrative, sometimes they don’t—so for example my Esther poem is more about a girl growing up with these strict gender roles rather than the whole biblical story.

M: In a case like that, where it’s not directly connected to the narrative in the Bible, what’s drawing you to Esther?

W: Well, when I was thinking about writing an Esther poem, I was honestly thinking about writing a gay Esther because I was thinking about how awful that whole situation was [for Esther], but also: what if she didn’t want to be with a man, period? What if she was a lesbian or asexual and just would have no interest in men at all? So I was thinking about that and realized that so much of those ideas start happening when we’re kids, especially for girls. You’re told that you’re going to marry your prince one day, and for some girls, that sounds terrible. So that’s what I had in mind when I was just thinking about Esther, and that’s what happened with the poem.

M: I think that if we think about any Evangelical audience, you’ve really given them an invitation to find the exit by saying that Esther could possibly be conceptualized as non-heterosexual [laughs]. I think that’s great. Do you have any Evangelicals reading your poems, and if so, how do they respond?

W: I have a lot of Evangelicals reading my poems. I dedicated the chapbook to my mom, and my mom’s still pretty Evangelical. She says she likes it, though. With poems like the Esther poem, I don’t come out and say, “Hey, by the way, Esther is gay.” It’s interesting because I actually wrote it for a friend of mine who’s gay, and I had her in mind when I was writing it; I was like, “Oh, this sounds like this friend of mine.” But I think that that poem can apply to all kinds of girls. I hated being told that I was going to get married one day when I was younger. I think a lot of these poems might open up possibilities for these women that Evangelicals might read, and they might just not pick up on any of that. People from other perspectives might read them and get a little bit more of the criticism or limited viewpoint of Evangelicalism from them.

M: Do you conceive of your poems as subversive? Or do you just write about people? You mentioned that the Esther one was written with a friend in mind.

W: There’s definitely a subversive element to that set of poems, because I kind of wrote it for myself in college or high school—like, I wish that me in college had some of these different versions of these stories, or different versions of these women. So it’s definitely subversive. I didn’t mean to write it in any kind of “Take that, Evangelicalism!” way, though there’s definitely some of that added to some of the poems, too. But it feels more personal—like, “Take that, person in my Greek class who belittled me.”

M: As someone who knew you during undergrad and heard stories about your frustrations in your classes, I find that delightful. Even though I didn’t know a lot of those people personally, it is nice to imagine that Whitney, eight years later, is now scribbling away poems that will put those people in their place. You probably put them in their place at the time anyway. Anyway, you mentioned the Bible stories that don’t get told, or only get told in a particular way, and I think that both Esther and Eve are interesting examples of that—and also Proverbs 31, which we can get to eventually, too, because it’s one I think is really interesting. But first about Esther. You’re talking about the traditional Evangelical interpretation that you heard, the “you’ll one day meet your prince” story, which is interesting because in a certain way, Esther does conform to the Cinderella-type story—the second half of Cinderella isn’t too different from Esther in the sense that a royal man rides around trying to pick up chicks. But there’s also a lot of the context that I think sometimes people ignore, like the fact that the king… does he execute his first wife at the beginning of the book? Because she won’t perform sexual favors? There’s something really egregiously sexist at the beginning.

W: Yeah, his wife is killed for basically not doing what he tells her to do. Right now, I don’t remember what it was, but it’s super scary. And so to be in the position of “Will you be the next queen?” should be terrifying.

M: Plus the added element of the fact that Esther is Jewish, and the Jewish people are on the verge of being massacred in the book. I think it’s so interesting that, as a dude, I had never heard the story of Esther told as something to aspire to, at least in the matrimonial situation; you might aspire to her faith or her courage, but did people just straight-up tell you that Esther is a great example of a submissive wife, or something like that?

W: The thing that really got me about how people talked about Esther was that there was so much focus on her beauty, which is definitely a factor in the story—she’s chosen because she is so beautiful. But it was talked about in this sense of awe, and that seems really troubling to me. And then when it came to Esther saving her people, that’s awesome, but I usually heard it talked about as just “Wait on the Lord, be faithful, do whatever He tells you to do,” and, while I’m all about following divine guidance, it was often tied up in this idea of “Do what the king wants you to do.” I found that very disturbing.

M: Isn’t Esther famously the only book of the Bible that doesn’t mention God by name?

W: Yes! And I think that’s so cool.

M: And the king himself in that story is super distant and scary. Doesn’t she have to prostrate herself before him three times before he’ll even listen to her request?

W: Yeah, there’s a super scary thing with the way that it’s a risk of her life for her to come before the king without him calling for her, and so she takes this huge risk of dying just to invite him to the dinner where stuff goes down and she saves her people eventually. So that’s a really scary part to me in that story.

M: You talk about parts of stories that are ignored or the ways that the Bible is interpreted in certain limited ways, while really, the Bible and the Christian tradition in general is just so sprawling that I think any person has to necessarily make some sort of editorial decisions when trying to figure out how it’s all going to influence their lives. But it’s fascinating how different ideologies or denominations or what have you choose to make those edits. What you’re telling me about how Evangelicals view Esther is clearly an editorializing of the text. I mean, the Jewish people view it completely different; for them, she’s more of a national hero, right, with the holiday of Purim. Versus the kind of individualistic view of “She’s so hot she saves the country, and she serves God.” So speaking of editing, your poem “The SeminarianTranslates Proverbs 31” is interesting. First of all, translation is a work of editing as well. Those of use who went to Union always knew the different agendas of the different translations. But then your poem basically has the text of Proverbs 31, with words omitted or printed in white so that you can’t see them unless you highlight them. Describe to me what’s behind that poem.

W: One thing I wanted to highlight was what translation is and what it means to read a biblical text. The closest I ever got to losing my faith was in a Greek class when a student answered a question with an interpretation that I thought was totally untrue and I also knew that he didn’t believe in, but it showed me that you can make anything mean what you want it to mean, and especially if you know the original language. That’s just such a power that can be good but is so often used for evil purposes. So when I was writing the Proverbs poem, I was thinking about how I’ve had that passage taught to me before, just all kinds of different things about what I’m supposed to be as a woman, what I’m supposed to be as a good wife. I wanted to show some of the freakiness behind the teachings that we get with Proverbs 31. Erasing those words and having more of a terrifying look at the woman in Proverbs 31—she is terrified—that’s mostly what I was trying to do.

M: It almost works like found poetry. Have you ever done anything like that before?

W: I haven’t done found poetry, but I did two other poems like this in the chapbook, one of the Magnificat and one of Mary Magdalene at the resurrection. So I’ve realized that I like doing it with Bible passages.

M: What is it about Bible passages?

W: I just love thinking about how reading anything, in any language, is an act of interpretation, and the place where I’ve heard that messed up the most is in biblical interpretation. Growing up I often heard, “Just read the text, don’t interpret it,” and that’s ridiculous, because reading is interpretation. So I think I’m especially drawn to the erasure of the biblical passages.

M: Regarding the same poem but in a different gear: I’m reading these poems online, and on the website where I’m reading “The Seminarian Translates Proverbs 31,” there’s an element that feels to me essentially digital, which is what I mentioned earlier where if you click and drag to highlight across the page, you can see the erased text. What does that look like in the chapbook, since obviously you can’t click and drag in a physical book?

W: In the chapbook, on paper, a lot of found or erasure poetry looks confusing or jumbled, and with the Proverbs one, it’s the longest erasure poem in the book, and it looks just like a passage scattered or torn apart, which I think is really cool for what the text is. It kind of looks like a sprinkling of words here and there. The typesetter was awesome, and it ended up looking very readable.

M: Does the reader still have access to the erased words?

W: That’s totally gone. But in the notes section, I do say the exact passage and the translation, so if people want to go read the original, they can.

M: This is on a completely different subject, but in the case of the Proverbs 31 poem, that was done on the internet in a way that makes the technology that renders it on the page essential to how it’s read on the page. I know in fiction, which is what I’m most familiar with, you have with the digital era the rise of digital fiction with hypertext novels and that sort of thing; do you do that much with digital poetry? I don’t even know what poetry does in the realm of the digital world.

W: There is some interesting stuff going on with digital poetry. A lot of it technologically I don’t even know how to do, so I haven’t looked into it much. But also, my eyes can’t read a lot of stuff like that, so I haven’t been drawn to it because it’s difficult for me to see it while I’m typing it.

M: So it’s the screen that makes it hard to read?

W: It’s the screen.

M: Gotcha. Yeah, screens suck.

W: They change everything.

M: I don’t know if you also feel this way, but you can go to Project Gutenberg or something and find the entire text of a novel on a single webpage, and you read the whole thing just by scrolling down the whole time, and I find that to be a completely different reading experience from reading individual pages in a book, in addition to the added difficulty of the screen itself.

W: Honestly, I find stuff like that really nauseating. It feels like so much all at once, like cramming a ton of data into something, like cramming for a test rather than just absorbing the material.

M: Here’s an even broader question: I read a little poetry but not a ton, and definitely not enough to be able to say what the state of poetry is today, but as mostly an outsider looking in, it seems to me that poetry is in an interesting place because even before print media started spiraling, it was becoming increasingly a niche interest, and it seems like that’s been compounded by the way that printed journals and such have retreated into obscurity. How do you feel about poetry as a medium right now?

W: Some people critique poetry as too abstract and too weird. I hear people say that about what they call “modern poetry,” which is hilarious because that’s not really modern poetry—that’s contemporary poetry. I think that the people saying these things probably aren’t that well-read; maybe they’re seeing what seems like the sexy, cool thing online, but there is so much going on with poetry that still feels very normal, like stuff that you might have read in a poetry class. There’s poetry that makes sense. There’s poetry that’s still narrative. And then you’ve also got stuff that’s a little more wild and all over the place. I like both. I do hate it when poetry is trying so hard to be new and sexy that it just ends up being a mess; that’s the kind that annoys me. One thing that’s really awesome is that the poetry community has been widening so much to include not just different races or genders but also people of different socioeconomic classes, and that’s something that’s cool about the internet. People laugh at the idea of Instagram poetry sometimes, but for people who don’t have access to the MFA programs or the connections that can get them published traditionally, I think that’s really cool that they could share their work on something as simple as Instagram. It’s a voice that I think is often left out of the typical big publisher world.

M: As a high school teacher, I can say that my students don’t read a ton generally, and they certainly don’t read a lot of poetry, but the only poetry I’ve actually seen my students read—and this was especially popular a couple years ago—was this collection called Milk and Honey. And I think the author started as an Instagram poet, right?

W: Yeah, it did start as Instagram poetry. I’ll be honest: I don’t like Milk and Honey. But I was thrilled that it got my literature class that semester to actually want to read other poetry. Poetry is so much a matter of taste more than merit, but it was sad that when my students asked, “Oh, do you like this book?” I said, “No.” But then some of them were saying, “So is this not real poetry?” and I had to stop myself and ask myself the question: What is “real” poetry? And I think so much of that is defined by the people that we find in the canon. So I said, “It is poetry. It’s real poetry. I just think that there’s better stuff out there.”

M: A lot of people are resistant to poetry, and you mention the abstraction. But I think in general, even if they don’t consider it abstract, people will say, “Poetry doesn’t click with me” or “I don’t understand poetry.” What would you say to those people? I wouldn’t say most people say that about novels or film or essays. They may say that about some novels or some films, but with poetry, people paint with such a broad brush that they say that they can’t get into any poetry. What would you say to those people?

W: One thing that I say to my students who say stuff like that is, “Yes, exactly. You don’t ‘get’ it. There isn’t a right or wrong interpretation.” Well, there are wrong interpretations. If you read T. S. Eliot and say that it’s about your dog… well, no, it’s not.

M: It was probably about his cat, actually.

W: Exactly [laughs]. But I love it when I can get real fights going in my class about what a poem is doing and finding different ways of looking at it. The students are all very respectful as they do it, but as they’re defending their own reading and arguing about it, they realize that there is so much possibility in the poem. There’s a Billy Collins poem that I start every one of my Intro to Lit classes with, and it’s called, “Introduction to Poetry.” It’s fantastic, because it’s about teaching introductory poetry and the idea of trying to “get” it or understand it. Like you said about people not saying that about novels or short stories or something, I think that a lot of the time there still is that idea of room for interpretation in fiction, but we don’t think of it that way because we walk away thinking, “This is what the story was; this is what the story meant.” We don’t always even think about how there might be debates about what’s going on there.

M: Why do you think people are able to do that with fiction but not with poetry?

W: I think that poetry demands an attention to certain words. It’s usually much shorter, so there’s an attention to words and syntax that people might take for granted in fiction. In poetry, we see that we’re supposed to pay attention to these certain words, and so if we don’t get it automatically, it can be frustrating, whereas in fiction, we read words in a sentence and don’t think about whether or not we get it because we can just move on to the next sentence.

M: Do you think that that aspect of poetry dooms poetry to a certain level of obscurity that other literary forms might not face?

W: It might. I think that some of the issue is that we have kind of marketed fiction as the layman’s literature: anybody can read a novel. They might not want to read Ulysses, but anybody can just read a book by itself. I think that part of the reason for this is that we have moved so much from the oral tradition, where we told long stories like The Aeneid in verse. I think another thing that’s contributed to it is film, because so much of film is just a story from the beginning to the end. I think that’s made people more prone to think that this is how stories work. And then they don’t find that thing in a lot of poetry. There are films that feel more like poetry than fiction to me, and that’s really cool.

M: Do you consider song lyrics poetry?

W: Yeah, I do. In fact—I can’t do this anymore because my students are too young now and haven’t known a world with this—but I used to start my poetry section off by having someone read “No Diggity” out loud. We were talking about if they liked poetry, and a lot of the students would say, “No, I don’t.” And I’d say, “Well, I want someone to read aloud this famous poem, and you all can tell me if you like it or not.” And then like halfway through, they’d be like, “Oh my gosh, it’s that song! I love this song!” It’s a great song, but it’s really funny to see them notice that suddenly: “Wait, this isn’t a poem, it’s a song,” and that’s because it’s both. I really admire good lyricists, because it’s hard enough for me to write a poem; the idea of doing that and having to think more about the music of it sounds unbelievably difficult.

M: One of the things I’ve run into trying to teach not just poetry in the sense of T. S. Eliot or whatever but also in Shakespearean plays, which of course are often written in verse, is the level of abstraction that we’ve given poetry that it might not have had originally. Like, I’m trying to teach about meter and iambic pentameter, and I think for a lot of my students, it’s completely abstract because when we look at the plays, they don’t sound like anything because they’re written on the page—it’s the same thing for a lot of poems, too. There are obviously open mics and things, but if you’re going to try to find poetry, the most immediate way you’ll find it is written down as opposed to recited. Do you think that that’s contributed to some of the distancing from other poetry compared to, let’s say, song lyrics’ poetry?

W: Yeah, I do think that’s contributed to it. I really have to read a poem aloud, for example, when I’ve gotten a new poetry book. It just doesn’t sink in for me until I do that. I don’t really know how people just read poems on a screen or on a page without saying it out loud. But that’s what most people do, and I think that adds to the disconnect between poetry proper and lyrics.

M: It’s kind of a teacher cliché to connect Shakespeare to rappers like Dangerous Minds and all that, but it is instructive at times, because hip-hop is one of the genres that keeps a lot of the poetic traditions alive that are hard for students to understand, like meter. I’ve always found it interesting and frustrating that something like Shakespeare’s work is so abstract for students because it’s so distanced from how it was initially experienced.

W: I have such a hard time teaching sound in my classes, and I think it’s because my students talk so differently—totally different pronunciations, different cadences. We have a ton of exchange students, students of every ethnicity, nationality, area of the country. So when I have a really Deep South student read a poem versus maybe one of my Spanish exchange students, it just sounds so different. And I can’t say, “You’re reading it wrong,” because that’s just not how the words might work for those students. So I find music really is the best way to teach sound.

M: Do you ever read your own poems to your students?

W: No. I don’t [laughs]. They ask me to, and it just feels weird to teach my own poem in any way, including just reading it out loud. My students still probably read them, since they can find them in print, but oh well.

M: Have they ever come back and talked to you about your work if they’ve gone and read it?

W: Yeah, sometimes. I try to hide a lot of my online life from my current students because they can just be really stalkery. But with the book being shipped out right now, it’s out of my hands. Some of my students know about it already. We’ll see if I get in trouble. And I guess we’ll see if they like it or if they never want to take my class again.




You can buy Whitney's chapbook, Birthmarks, here.