Comments on: Rachel McKibbens, ‘Pink Elephant’ (Cypher Books, 2009)

By: J. CHRISTOPHER RAMSEY

J. CHRISTOPHER RAMSEY — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:59:14 +0000

I feel rather guilty for not having ordered this book yet.
But being familiar with her work in the way that only a chronically unmotivated stalker could be, I’d have to say that she deserves to live in Print. Especially Print without staples, exuding the afterbirth of copy machine printing.

I could give a damn less about a category for her. Whether it be testimonial, confessional or sermon in a subcategory of Documentary peppered with chocolate chips and slathered in Plath. She simply writes Poetry.

I’ve watched thousands of people try over the years, including myself, and only twenty or so have deserved to really hold the title. She has been one. Having seen her written word long before hearing her performance, I can also say it stands alone ably… Mightily.

With some, we understand, the performance is the piece with the words occasionally showing up to work not smelling of intoxication, sometimes masking a meaning. A personality or charisma carrying random words, catch phrases, slogans and dictionary extra points exotica into some realm we call great Poetry. But can it be read?

With her, the answer is yes.

The only test I ever had for a Poet, and she passes it easily.

I can hear it in her voice, in the voice of her characters, the voice I give her, and also my own.

It’s so wonderful to see this come to pass.

Now excuse me, while I also praise with my pocketbook, and attempt to lock down a copy of this while I can.

By: maureen meade

maureen meade — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:52:43 +0000

Rachel’s work has already been plagiarized. That is testimony to how brilliant and effecting it is. ‘Pink Elephant’ is most certainly a testimony to her life, and is chronicled very specifically. It is so visceral and visual it reads like a film or play. But though her work is academically superior, I believe it goes beyond that in its artistry. As with all great art, regardless of technical proficiency, there is the important element that entertains the human psyche and imagination. Captivates its audience. Even when it is non-fiction, and based on “facts.” Rachel McKibbens could make a list of the events of her life, using bullet points, and it would still make for a very compelling story. But it is the way in which she chooses to present the “primary document” of her life, that makes her writing high art. She herself is a testament to how one can learn from their own history. How not to repeat it. How to make use of it. Artistic use. As well as tangible, life altering use. She is both raconteur and writer. She reaches people on many levels. She uses her extremely skillful talent with the written word, to share her experience. With poetry, she makes her testimony our testimony. Her experience, our experience. And we are moved and changed by it. The details are all specific to her own personal history. But the emotions are universal to humanity. And she presents them profoundly, while simultaneously allowing us access to them. That’s some trick.

By: Amber Tamblyn

Amber Tamblyn — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:28:17 +0000

I’m really looking forward to reading this book.

We had Rachel as one of our six featured authors this last year at our annual poetry series in Los Angeles, Thedrumsinsideyourchest.com. She was incredible. She made Michael McClure blush. That’s hard to do.

I’m a big fan and am looking forward to her book release party at Bowery Poetry Club in NYC on the 29th.

-Amber T.

By: Barbara Jane Reyes

Barbara Jane Reyes — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:24:35 +0000

I think you answered your own question, Colin.

C, yes on chronicling and documenting, and yes on poem as primary document. I suppose a writer of ‘doc po’ has the potential to appropriate others’ stories, and in this way be exploitative? Which is not the case with McKibbens’s work but rather a generalized statement.

Teri, I don’t know how to answer your last question. Re: “poetry of testimony” would be assertion on behalf of the speaker that this story matters – I agree with this and also see how it can be applied to ‘doc po.’

By: Colin Ward

Colin Ward — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:31:37 +0000

Barbara: What would be the difference between documentary/testimonial poetry and the [first person] narrative? Other than the fact that the latter may include fiction, I mean.

CSPEREZ: Might your historian friend appreciate poems on historical themes?

-o-

By: csperez

csperez — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:45:00 +0000

i asked a historian in my grad dept and she said: ‘i, too, dislike poetry.’ go fig.

hm, i think i misunderstood barbara. not the life as primary document but the poem as a primary document?

poetry has always been considered ‘primary sources’…but that is not what we are talking about i suppose.

why troubling teri? IF we are talking about history, then poetry is not all that dif than other historical sources…all depend on some kind of ‘narrativity’.

why would what you define as ‘doc po’ be exploitative? to paratax existing doc & personalize & manifestoize it seems pretty benign.

perhaps your def of ‘doc po’ is too narrow. i mean, isnt the class you linked to meant to open up the possibilities of ‘doc po’? in terms of mckibbens work (to steerback) barbara draws our attention (in the last para) to “chronicling”, which to me is the most prevalent ‘documentary impulse’. now, of course, there are many techniques thru which to ‘chronicle’ or ‘document’. but like i said before, i think this is just one impulse/poetics operating in mckibbens’ work.

haha i do believe kent johnson & blazebox already reprinted the book. tho i believe i heard someone call that ‘con po’.

By: Teri G.

Teri G. — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:59:33 +0000

A poem is a primary document. I like that. I wonder what a historian would think. I’m using the term “primary document” without having anything beyond a high school history sense of what it might actually be. It’s actually kind of troubling. Is “documentary poetics” exploitative? Whereas “poetry of testimony” would be assertion on behalf of the speaker that this story matters, this voice should be heard, made by the person who experienced the trauma (mckibbens?). The “on behalf of” in this case not as troubling as it is when the speaker and The Speaker are different people. What if someone reprinted all of McKibbens work word for word and called it “documentary poetics”?

By: csperez

csperez — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:30:10 +0000

thanks for your def teri g. very helpful! i also wondered ‘what that’ when i hear it.

barbara’s steerback brings up an interesting point in relation to ‘documentary poetics’/'confessional poetry’/'poetry as testimony’. we can read mckibbens’ work as ‘documentary poetics’ in the sense that it documents a life (as barbara says, the life as ‘primary documents’). so then one thinks of differing intentions that motivate what we call documentary, confession, testimony. it seems to me from the passages barbara quoted that mckibbens activates all three to varying degrees. tho i will have to read the whole book soon.

i never joke teri, xo, c

By: Barbara Jane Reyes

Barbara Jane Reyes — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:17:59 +0000

If I may steer the conversation back to McKibbens, and if I use Teri G’s working definition of documentary poetics, I think McKibbens’s work is more concerned with creating the primary document rather than creating poetry from existing primary documents. This makes me wonder what are the primary documents in cases of domestic and sexual abuse, and whether or not these benefit the survivors.

By: Teri G.

Teri G. — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:37:09 +0000

Right. XO? Really? Okay. I can never tell when you’re making fun. But I won’t worry. Here’s the thing: I don’t really have a definition. That class was from some lazy googling, looked like some good books, so I thought it might be helpful People talk about it all the time (or okay I hear it every once in a while and wonder “what is that?”) and as far as I can tell it’s poetry that uses primary documents from tragedies personal and public, shuffles them around to create some parataxis or whatever, and sometimes inserts some either personal or public business into the whole thing. There may be some kind of manifesto somewhere that lays it all out. But I thought about it because of “testimony,” which made me think of Reznikoff (like I typed up there) and his book “Testimony.” Which I like a lot. And is in the ballpark of what I think of as “documentary poetics.”