Interview

How to Write Love Poems

Adrian Blevins, Rebecca Hoogs, Cyrus Cassells, and Craig Arnold on how to write love poems that don't suck.

by Jeremy Richards

I once responded to a girlfriend’s love poem by critiquing its imagery. That relationship didn’t last long. After all, who was I to ignore Oscar Wilde’s bromide, “All bad poetry springs from genuine feeling”? Isn’t it heartless to greet florid devotion with a red pen, to rebuff earnest swoons with a call for better metaphors? But as always, this Valentine’s Day will prompt reams of gushy, heartfelt doggerel, reminding us that the greeting card industry relies on mass consumption of singsong rhymes to accompany the roses and chocolate-covered cherries. At other times of the year, we don’t see a rush for Easter villanelles or Arbor Day sonnets. But the love poem? That is universal. And as with anything universal, it’s damn hard to do without coming off as lovesick teenagers fumbling with scansion and sentiment.


To talk about this particular challenge, we invited four poets to discuss the art of the love poem, all of them poets who reinvent the subject not as lace and violets but as a shattered display window, “an ache and a kink,” “the black pulse of dominoes,” or “a bird/trapped in the terminal”—anything but what we’ve come to expect.

* * *

 

Adrian Blevins

 


What’s the most pressing challenge in approaching a love poem?
The trouble is not really the poetry but the feelings. We are raised on such cockamamie folklore that it’s all rather depressing when experience teaches us that the prince is not going to come riding in on his white horse. Oh, I’m not saying he doesn’t show up sometimes. But he’s not a prince, for one thing. And there’s no horse. And she’s not Cinderella either. Because, though he is fond of her cleavage and various things she might sometimes do or say, she’s got the worst taste in music he’s ever encountered. The problem with love poetry is that it must be felt and written by humans, who never feel one feeling at a time. I mean, love has fear in it. And guilt and misery and a special kind of hallucinating loneliness (says James Wright). The problem for the poet is how to get such a hodgepodge into one coherent space.

Where do you think most bad love poems go astray?
The trouble, again, is not the poetry but the heart. Even people who are trained to tell whatever truth is at hand have a hard time expressing this truth because, for one thing, they are so unknowing. I mean, we don’t really understand ourselves. We try and we try, but we’re a work in progress and mere mortals besides. Bad love poetry is bad because it is trite. Triteness is bad because it’s untrue, and untrueness is bad because it is a waste of time and energy and, somehow, unjust.

As a younger poet, did you ever fumble with the bad, saccharine attempts at love poems that most of us write? What can we learn from those fumbles?
The difficulty of being a young poet is not only or even mainly the problem of being an inexperienced line or image or metaphor maker, for these are problems a devotion to the tradition can fix. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the problem with the young poet is that she’s an inexperienced feeler. So she makes all kinds of mistakes with people. Mostly herself. I have indeed written the most hackneyed and hideous love poems imaginable. Abstract, yes, and if not full of purple flowers, full of something bad, anyway—somebody kneeling in front of somebody else holding some kind of ridiculous object! I think the most important thing any poet or writer can do to improve his or her odds of writing a good poem of any type is to learn continuously how to pay attention. Poetry is not about how we feel, of course. It’s about how we feel about how we feel. Knowing how we feel about how we feel requires an almost ungodly attentiveness or consciousness—an otherworldly watchfulness and vigilance. As does—maybe? —love?

The Way She Figured He Figured It

 


You get over these constant storms and learn to be married all over again, every day.
                              —Barry Hannah

The foyer is hers because the kettle is hers as it was made for water and the water is hers
                 because the sac that grew the baby was hers though the semen that made the sac was his
                                         like his boots are his and the tea that’s of the kettle

after it enters his mouth is his unless it’s hers since it’s inside the kitchen that’s hers

and therefore not his unless he’s simmering the Asian sauces that are his
                 because they’re dense and knotty rather than milkish and paltry
                                         like everything else from the nation state of the motherland

of the no-mercy child who won’t stop sucking and wanting and whining in the ear that is his

although the child herself belongs somehow to the woman and thus its hunger is hers
                 as is the bed and dresser and mirror and latch
                                         though the hammer naturally is his and the saw and lumber

and back and muscle he suffered to build because he guessed he thought it would be

good for something besides this house like a pestilence of people who weren’t his
                 because nothing was his except the whirl he carried in his belly of the mix-up
                                         of loving her in the first place

like being sucked into a burrow of lava embers and putting your tongue to it until it caught fire

and all he could say was that the burn was his—this hole in the mouth—
                 this fiasco of the woman bent now in the garden to smell the cilantro
                                         as though she didn’t know his head was split

with hating her and loving her and hating her and loving her

because she was an ache and a kink and somehow the furrow—the groove and the rut—
                 and age and death and kiss and fuck and not-fuck and song and not-song
                                         and no it was not sweet though he’d go on and carry it

                                                          since also—since mostly—it was.



“The Way She Figured He Figured It” was originally published in The American Poetry Review.

Adrian Blevins’s The Brass Girl Brouhaha (Ausable Press, 2003) won the 2004 Kate Tufts Discovery Award. Blevins is also the recipient of a Rona Jaffe Writer’s Foundation Award, a Bright Hill Press Chapbook Award for The Man Who Went Out for Cigarettes, and the Lamar York Prize for Nonfiction. A new book, Live from the Homesick Jamboree, is forthcoming from Wesleyan University Press. Blevins teaches at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.

* * *

 

Rebecca Hoogs

 


What’s the most pressing challenge in approaching a love poem?
The most pressing challenge is to not write only love poems. I feel like I don’t approach love poems; they approach me. Usually I’m trying to avoid them, like at a party. When forced to confront them, when it’s just the two of us left at the long, picked-over buffet table, I try my hardest to counter cliché and easy sentimentality. This is why I took the approach of confronting cliché head-on in “Another Plot Cliché.” When love itself is a cliché, and almost every metaphor for it feels spent, the only approach is to turn those clichés inside out, push them so far that they explode and hopefully turn into something. The etymology of “cliché” traces back to “stamped in metal.” I want to turn our contemporary abstractions back into their original concrete (or metal) states.

Where do you think most bad love poems go astray?
There are so many places a bad love poem can go astray! Taking the poem or yourself too seriously is dangerous. Or they go astray when the author isn’t willing to find the edge. A good love poem lives in a tense state. If there’s no tension in the love, there’s no tension in the poem. “I love you, you’re perfect,” no matter how prettily said, is boring.

Is there a difference between a “love poem” and a poem about love?
Here’s a theory: what if “love poems” are poems that are in the thick of love, first blush, white-hot? In a love poem, the love still comes first. And perhaps a poem about love is less about the feeling than the relationship. It’s about the work that goes into making love still a feeling. A poem about love is always trying to get back to being a love poem, but there’s that tension again.

Another Plot Cliché

My dear, you are the high-speed car chase, and I,
I am the sheet of glass being carefully carried
across the street by two employees of Acme Moving
who have not parked on the right side
because the plot demands that they make
the perilous journey across traffic,
and so they are cursing as rehearsed
as they angle me into the street, acting as if
they intend to get me to the department store, as if
I will ever take my place as the display window, ever clear
the way for a special exhibit at Christmas, or be windexed
once a day, or even late at night, be pressed against
by a couple who can’t make it back to his place,
and so they angle me into the street, a bright lure,
a provocative claim, their teaser, and indeed
you can’t resist my arguments, fatally flawed
though they are, so you come careening to but and butt
and rebut, you come careening, you being
both cars, both chaser and chased, both good and bad, both
done up with bullets that haven’t yet done you in.
I know I’m done for: there’s only one street
on this set and you’ve got a stubborn streak a mile long.
I can smell the smoke already.
No matter, I’d rather shatter
than be looked through all day. So come careening; I know
you’ve other clichés to hammer home: women with groceries
to send spilling, canals to leap as the bridge is rising.
And me? I’m so through. I’ve got a thousand places to be.




“Another Plot Cliché” was originally published in Poetry.

Rebecca Hoogs is the author of a chapbook, Grenade (2005), and her poems have appeared in Poetry, AGNI, Crazyhorse, Zyzzyva, The Journal, Poetry Northwest, The Florida Review, and others. She is the recipient of fellowships from the MacDowell Colony (2004) and Artist Trust of Washington State (2005). She is the Director of Education Programs and the curator and host of the Poetry Series for Seattle Arts & Lectures.

* * *

 

Cyrus Cassells

 


What’s the most pressing challenge in approaching a love poem?
The most pressing concern is conveying intimacy without shutting the reader out of the ecstatic feelings limned in a love poem—to give just enough information without lapsing into a dynamic akin to voyeurism and exhibitionism.

Where do you think most bad love poems go astray?
Bad love poems usually go into gauzy “soft focus,” ignore revealing details, and refuse to accurately and specifically portray real intimacy or the Beloved.

Is there a distinct aesthetic for a queer poet writing about love?
My goal in my homoerotic book of love poems, Beautiful Signor, was to claim traditional romantic tropes, primarily from the troubadour and Sufi traditions, for the gay community, to testify that we have “moons and Junes” as well. I wanted to create a springtime “garden” that straight people could walk into, too, and feel at home. So no, I don’t think there’s necessarily a distinct aesthetic, but I do believe that a queer poet writes with a keen sense of how love is often hindered or even imperiled by society’s and the traditional family’s rampant fears and prejudices.

Beautiful Signor


All dreams of the soul
End in a beautiful man’s or woman’s body.

—Yeats, “The Phases of the Moon”


Whenever we wake,
still joined, enraptured—
at the window,
each clear night’s finish
the black pulse of dominoes
dropping to land;

whenever we embrace,
haunted, upwelling,
I know
a reunion is taking place—

Hear me when I say
our love’s not meant to be
an opiate;
helpmate,
you are the reachable mirror
that dares me to risk
the caravan back
to the apogee, the longed-for
arms of the Beloved—


Dusks of paperwhites,
dusks of jasmine,
intimate beyond belief

beautiful Signor

no dread of nakedness

beautiful Signor

my long ship,
my opulence,
my garland

beautiful Signor

extinguishing the beggar’s tin,
the wind of longing

beautiful Signor

laving the ruined country,
the heart wedded to war

beautiful Signor

the kiln-blaze
in my body,
the turning heaven

beautiful Signor

you cover me with pollen

beautiful Signor

into your sweet mouth—


This is the taproot:
against all strictures,
desecrations,
I’ll never renounce,
never relinquish
the first radiance, the first
moment you took my hand—

This is the endless wanderlust:
dervish,
yours is the April-upon-April love
that kept me spinning even beyond
your eventful arms
toward the unsurpassed:

the one vast claiming heart,
the glimmering,
the beautiful and revealed Signor.




Beautiful Signor was published by Copper Canyon Press in 1997.


Cyrus Cassells is the author of four acclaimed books of poetry: The Mud Actor, Soul Make a Path through Shouting, Beautiful Signor, and More Than Peace and Cypresses. His fifth book, The Crossed-Out Swastika, is forthcoming in 2010 from Copper Canyon Press. Among his honors are a Lannan Literary Award, a Lambda Literary Award, the William Carlos Williams Award, two NEA grants, and a Pushcart Prize. He is a professor of English at Texas State University–San Marcos.

* * *

 

Craig Arnold

 


What’s the most pressing challenge in approaching a love poem?
For a poet at the beginning of the 21st century, I think the most difficult thing is how to navigate this brave new world, where we’re in the midst of making up our collective mind about what it means to be men and women. In the Western tradition most love poems have assumed a male poet writing to or about a female object, who can accept or refuse the offering but who doesn’t otherwise say much, and the formal conventions of poetry have crystallized around that assumption. There are those wonderful Provençal troubadour poems that imagine the poem as a dialogue, a back-and-forth between two mutually desiring individuals, but those are among the few exceptions. Now when we sit down to write poems to our lovers—or to the people we hope will be our lovers—we’re more likely to be thinking: What am I responding to? How do I hope this person will respond? How is this part of an ongoing conversation? With “Bird-Understander” I wanted to say not, as an Elizabethan courtly sonneteer might have said, “Look, I made your words into poetry, aren’t I fabulous?” but rather “Listen, what you said to me, it’s already poetry, better than anything I could write, and it would make me happy simply to have you see that.”

Where do you think most bad love poems go astray?
Any love poem has to strike a careful balance between the particular and the common. As a lover you feel as though you and your beloved are the most intensely particular people in the world—“Never again a love like this,” as Roddy Lumdsen says. But the fact is that you’re submitting yourself to what is possibly the most common or universal human experience, and that sometimes the most direct and most accurate expression of that experience may, in fact, be the language of cliché. I’m thinking about the duet that Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman sing on the rooftop in Moulin Rouge, which is just a pastiche of trashy pop songs, and in some way that’s what all love poetry is leaning toward. But when you think about [it], what is a cliché, if not a poem that won? We feel that so many love poems are bad, or clichéd, but I suspect that what we dislike about them are not the clichés, but the experience of being in love itself. As poets we like to think that we’re original, and it embarrasses us to remember how utterly unoriginal we can be—the sudden appeal of the corniest things, the mood swings, the crying at movies and the like. Let’s face it, nobody in love is original. We all feel and do pretty much the same things, make fools of ourselves in the same ways, and hopefully come through it alive and well and happily in bed with someone else. But that’s also precisely the appeal of love poetry, the intensely humbling nature of the experience it tries to describe.

As a younger poet, did you ever fumble with the bad, saccharine attempts at love poems that most of us write? What can we learn from those fumbles?
It’s hard to say. I came into my writerly existence in the 1980s, the Decade of Irony, when it was very uncool to express any sort of strong feeling directly or plainly. If you wanted to be taken seriously as a writer, you learned to police yourself for any signs of sincerity, to cloak them in irony and diffidence and perhaps a certain obscurity. A while ago, my first lover sent me a copy of a poem I wrote when I was maybe 19, and what strikes me about it now is, though I clearly meant it as a gesture of love, I didn’t frame it as such. Rather than I addressing you, it was all in the third person, a sketch of a character from a noir novel, a sort of Philip Marlowe–like individual smoking underneath a window. It was a stealth love poem, a meta–love poem, a sort of “I have this friend who’s in love with you” kind of poem. The habit of indirection was already very strong in me, as it was with other poets of that era. So I think the danger then was actually not being too saccharine, but rather of being too cool, too frigid. Now the danger is probably being too caffeinated—I’m thinking of the maniacally antic poems of the New New New York School, whatever generation of that we’re on now. So one can fumble by being too cool, and one can fumble by burying the truth of one’s feeling under a heap of jagged and jarring images. I think Creeley, of all people, was able to hit the right note, plain and plaintive and wistful and awkward—what he brings out is the awful hesitancy of that moment where you’re holding out this little offering to somebody else and hoping to hear Yes I said yes I will yes. And what you’re risking is a certain kind of sentimentality. But for my money, I think it’s better to risk the sentimental and fail, than aim for frigidity and succeed.

Bird-Understander

Of many reasons I love you here is one

the way you write me from the gate at the airport
so I can tell you everything will be alright

so you can tell me there is a bird
trapped in the terminal    all the people
ignoring it    because they do not know
what do with it    except to leave it alone
until it scares itself to death

it makes you terribly terribly sad

You wish you could take the bird outside
and set it free or    (failing that)
call a bird-understander
to come help the bird

All you can do is notice the bird
and feel for the bird    and write
to tell me how language feels
impossibly useless

but you are wrong

You are a bird-understander
better than I could ever be
who make so many noises
and call them song

These are your own words
your way of noticing
and saying plainly
of not turning away
from hurt

you have offered them
to me    I am only
giving them back

if only I could show you
how very useless
they are not



Craig Arnold’s second book of poems, Made Flesh (Copper Canyon), is guaranteed to get you a hot date for Valentine’s Day.

Originally Published: February 10, 2009

COMMENTS (23)

On February 10, 2009 at 5:39pm Justin Duewel-Zahniser wrote:
I had an excellent poetry professor in

college who told us at the beginning of

the semester that if we wrote happy

love poetry, we wouldn't do well in the

class. Not because he would punish us,

but because it just wouldn't work. It

was good advice.

On February 11, 2009 at 12:52am pastfirst wrote:
It all depends on what you want to achieve by writing a love poem.

If you're aiming to be compared as a poet to Yeats or other great poets, it's advisable to stick to other subjects.

love is...a mushy, far from serious subject.

On February 11, 2009 at 12:47pm Mairead wrote:
Thank you for these! I'm reminded of what Jeanette Winterson wrote: "'I love you' is always a quotation. You did not say it first and neither did I..." But poems like these (I especially love 'Another Plot Cliche') prove that there are still interesting and beautiful ways to say and re-say it.

pastfirst, since when is love "far from serious"? As far as I'm aware it's been battling death for the top spot in serious poetry topics since before Shakespeare (whose best poems were love poems). Read your Yeats (and the "other great poets" you cite) a little more closely; you might find titles like these of particular interest: "A Poet to his Beloved," "He Gives his Beloved Certain Rhymes," "He Remembers Forgotten Beauty," and "Beautiful Lofty Things," which includes in its litany the love-packed line, "Maud Gonne at Howth station waiting a train."

On February 12, 2009 at 10:25am Anne wrote:
I think all poems are love poems.

On February 14, 2009 at 6:48pm Gram- wrote:
I've just read your poem about love and it needs a little more study on my part. I didn't know love could be so complex, but you need to know again that you have my simple straight forward love! XXXOOO

On February 17, 2009 at 2:27pm cathy adeli wrote:
let us not over think love, it just is and is a glorious mystery, now and forever.

your breath ripples the air carressing me again and again again

On February 17, 2009 at 6:43pm Scot Siegel wrote:
A writing prompt:

First tell the truth about someone you

loved & lost; the whole truth. Next,

Tell the truth about the one who will

always be with you, despite your every

effort to lose her or him. Again, tell the

whole truth

The love poem lives somewhere in

between those two stanzas.

On February 19, 2009 at 3:25pm Noah wrote:
If you are really in love with someone, you don't have to think about what to write. It just... does.

On February 20, 2009 at 10:03am Matt Mason wrote:
What a fun read, particularly since I've been bloodying my forehead on a love poem started yesterday... great thoughts in the interviews and great poems... I was not familiar with 3 of the poets interviewed but now plan to rectify that.

On February 21, 2009 at 3:17pm Jim Richardson wrote:
You cannot write about love in it's entirety, it is much too complex a subject for that. Like the universe, it is huge, simply too vast to comprehend as a single entity, and much of it is unseen. We therefore have to rely on our emotive eye to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, our vision, and our inexperience on the subject.

At this point our poem collapses because we find it difficult to separate what we need to say, from what we feel we should say. No matter what we do we cannot separate our emotions from our writing as the one can not exist without the other, nor should we want to. What we can do however, is exert the very firm hand of control on the emotional content of a poem, and balance this with all the technical ability we have at our disposal.

To overcome some of the problems writing about love poems I try writing about a) an old relationship I have had where the memories still remain, but any anger and frustration are long since spent b) or write about the love of someone very close to you e.g. parents or siblings as you see their relationship.

I personally find it quite remarkable the difference time, distance and perspective can bring to the type of love poem I end up writing. I still use emotion when doing this, and therein lies the difference, "my emotions do not use me". At least not in the same ruthless manor as they do when I write about love from a purely personal aspect. If I ever learn to marry the experience of the latter to the raw energy of the former I just might get somewhere (someday).

And finally. You do not have to tell someone you love them, they already know if you do or not. This is because, love, like poetry, works best if you show - don't tell.

On February 23, 2009 at 2:48pm I wrote:
Perhaps the reason we always have, and always will, write love poems is because it is too complex a thing for one poet to ever say? Collectively, page by page, year by year, we might know more to know...

On February 24, 2009 at 10:59am Marc DiGiuseppe wrote:
I will have to read through it all again. Significant to me was each poet's point of view. Each sentiment expressed as genuine concern and an understanding of that human need for self-expression.

I may sound like a hopeless romantic when I say this but I believe that the last person on Earth--the last one of our kind will be a poet. When poetry can no longer be created, mankind will perish.

Love is energy and very powerful if it is expressed unconditionally. When a love poem puts human feelings down on paper, regardless of whether those feelings are dark or happy thoughts, it is a small but significant movement toward civility. That delicate civility stands between us and Chaos.

Love poems tell us that the poet can appreciate the influence our emotions can have upon our behavior and upon the way in which we choose to view the world in a philosophical speculation of how things might be.

Most of us walk through life being told by the rule-makers and law-givers how things should be or must be. But, when I read love poems, I learn how my precious fellows feel about themselves and about those others to which they mean no harm.

Whether they are well-written according to an academic standard of excellence or poorly written, fumbling expressions of the ache and the yearning felt by another human being, I like reading them all because they make me feel so safe and comfortable about the future of my kind.

On March 2, 2009 at 12:00pm Terri Hall wrote:
I very much agree with Noah. The words just come out when you are in love with someome; or when you love someone. I also agree with Adrian Blevians; knowing how we feel about what we feel.

I cannot just sit down and write a poem, just because I may want to write a poem. I have to feel it. I have to know that I understand what I am feeling, then it all flows out. Sometimes I think my hand processes those feelings before my mind gets a chance to.

I don't believe that one should spend so much time wondering what words to use to express how they feel. Just write it. If you spend so much time on how you should voice those feelings, you may forget some of the things you wanted to express in the first place. You can spice it up after it's written down.

Any true feelings spoken from a loving heart is POETRY!

On March 3, 2009 at 4:45pm Dan Williamson wrote:
I love!

There is no conditions.

There were.

They were fulfilled.

I do not infatuate.

I did,

but that was long ago.

I love,

NOW!

On March 5, 2009 at 8:07pm Steven Stone wrote:
Love poems.....there has to be a balance of craft, art and feeling - and then transcend them both. Other than that, love poems are like any other poems - more accessible for the most part. You can't approach a love poem based only on emotion. But it still has to be there - alchemized into poetry.

I have often felt the presence of a "glass ceiling" between myself and the so-called "better" poets, or at least the "very publishable" ones.

Nobody said this would be easy.

On March 8, 2009 at 11:04pm lily wrote:
i've been writing for 6 years, and then i wrote the most terrible love poem, i wish i could take it back, it stops me from writing any more. now i try to just stick to catching random transmissions. love is a difficult energy to harness.

On March 10, 2009 at 9:09am Garman Lord wrote:
I suspect that the secret of writing a good love poem is in not trying too hard. Don't worry about things like cliches, just write whatever comes out, like you always do, then go back through and edit like you always do. Your gears will naturally shift from stupefied lover mode to articulate poet mode, and whatever cliches came blundering out will begin disappearing along the way simply because poets don't produce cliches when in poet mode top gear.

On March 13, 2009 at 2:01pm Lissa wrote:
Beautiful piece. Makes me think: why

must we insist on originality, anyway? Is

anyone (in love or not) ever really

original?

On March 23, 2009 at 3:54am Ma. Teresa Nicolas wrote:
writing love poem is freeing u of ur emotions. some may say it is original n some will say it is not original. but the thing is - its new to u, it is urs, just write it out, it will help u, n hu knows u may help the one hu gonna read it.

On April 8, 2009 at 1:52pm Ruben Santos Claveria wrote:
I once went looking for the perfect love poem to read to someone with sounding like I'm reading a greeting card, and discovered there is no perfect love poem. Every occassion has it's invidual memory and that memory can be a source for a narrative love poem where things are not told but shown through vivid images and metaphors. I was just listening to the poem "My Love is Like a Red, Red Rose," being sung by John McDermott and I liked the poem a little better and appreciated the days when love poems were in song form. I've tried to write a love poem in song form and turned it into an act of remembering amusing anecdotes that I wanted to share with the one I love. If you could blend image and rhyme together to make a song that doesn't sound cliche to your ear then you know your poem is good. I rarely rhyme in my poetry so I can now appreciate those poems that express something well. Some poets probably never publish their love poems because the memory is so stong and private and setimental to them. Poems that are more objective criticism of love affairs like William Carlos William's book "Journey To Love," can reach a level of originality without being too sentimental. In essence, love poetry to me is just casting a net into the ocean of memories and coming up with a fish you can eat with the one you love.

On April 27, 2009 at 5:53pm gaby wrote:
listen poet is somethinggOOd

On March 9, 2010 at 7:46am ulrich wrote:
love poems should be able to send a message.

On February 20, 2013 at 12:20pm ceairra wrote:
lol nice love poem you influnced me to write them

POST A COMMENT

Poetryfoundation.org welcomes comments that foster dialogue and cultivate an open community on the site. Comments on articles must be approved by the site moderators before they appear on the site. By submitting a comment, you give the Poetry Foundation the right to publish it. Please note: We require comments to include a name and e-mail address. Read more about our privacy policy.

Related

Biography

Jeremy Richards is a poet and journalist living in Seattle. His work has appeared widely, including in The Spoken Word Revolution Redux, McSweeney's, Rattle, The Morning News, and on National Public Radio's Morning Edition, Day to Day, and All Things Considered. "Nietzsche! The Musical," for which he wrote the book and lyrics, premiered at Seattle's Market Theater in June 2010. Richards holds a BA from Gonzaga University and an . . .

Continue reading this biography

Originally appeared in Poetry magazine.

This poem has learning resources.

This poem is good for children.

This poem has related video.

This poem has related audio.