FFTB 2010 Step 1.0: Interview with Joe Hall!
September 3rd, 2010
Poetry Instigator got the chance to interview Joe Hall, author of Pigafetta Is My Wife and a GMU MFA alum. Joe is going to read during FFTB on Sept 23rd at 4:30pm.
Make sure you don’t miss the reading!
SM: Pigafetta is My Wife is an impressive debut and an ambitious project. Can you tell us a bit about your process?
JH: Process for me (and everyone) contains elements of structure and freedom. Structure came from my research into the Philippines, post-colonial theory, the literature of “discovery,” and the application of this research into a manipulation and amendment of Pigafetta’s journal into a critique of its original self. Structure in the second section of the book also came from a determination to use sestinas and pantoums when approaching history and relationships. I allowed myself freedom within and outside of the limits of these structures. I reserved the right to fuse my own image-generating imagination with Pigafetta’s and elaborate and extend his most fantastic or bizarre “discoveries.” I have nightmares and indulgent daydreams, and it was good to find a structure in which to activate them. I also wrote poems about my relationship with C in the context of DC, Indiana, and separation in whatever form felt most appropriate at the time. So at first I was always writing two things at once—the collage pieces and the letters of address—and then these two streams started to cross. This is hindsight, however. These rules/parameters evolved over the course of the project. I started knowing I wanted to infest personal and historical narratives with each other. That was the basic premise.
SM: Why the address to Cheryl?
JH: To hold myself accountable to the content of the writing, to put something at stake in the process and remove the writing from the realm of pure “experiment.” And also because I wanted to feel through our relationship in the most ecstatic, stringent terms I know so that I could make the right decisions in regard to it. I also wanted to make something “for” Cheryl.
Beyond this book I have continued to write in address to someone else. I’m convinced that the muses and the general poetry reading public are both fantastic myths, so I might as well write toward the people that are going to read what I’m writing and they can love it or hate it and tell me so.
SM: The idea of circumnavigation, do you see it as inherent in both form and content— the sestina and pantoum, are they the journey as well?
JH: This is a great question. Thank you. Hmm. Yes, I suppose so. In that I wanted to travel to the limits of the formal world—from dramatic monologue to fractured heaps of words with the sestina and pantoum exerting some kind of centripetal force on all this material. I love the way these forms organize information and assert its significance through repetition but also destabilize/complicate meanings through the accumulation of that repetition.
Along these lines, one thing that drew me to the literature of discovery was the mapping of the unknown and how that mapping inflects how one constructs meaning from the perceived new. You are always a slave to the knowledge you accept as true and it alters stimuli for acceptable entrance into that economy of knowledge. You draw a line around the world. You limit it. You go somewhere so you can return, go home, sleep. But in the meanwhile maybe you died. Which is the difference between song and narrative. What was known about C is unknown and in waiting.
SM: I’ve read on your blog that war is always on your mind. Do you consider the book to be dwelling in a general realm of violence informed by the references, or is it more specific to its references?
JH: Oh no. My blog…
Much of the violence is the violence caused by a colonial or occupying power within South East Asia—one group violating the space of another group and the underwriting of this violation through violence to and control of bodies. The specificity is important; I do not want to simply signify violence; the violence does escape its context…
SM: The theme of violence is present alongside the contemporary love poem—how do you see them operating together?
JH:…through these juxtapositions which do not have a single goal or rational effect which I am able to explain. I very much wanted to write about love—about another. I wondered what happened to the contemporary love poem in more fragmented poetics until I started trying to write a love poem. I found it very difficult to celebrate or make a poem about love. Even the language of physical description is fraught. I could only think about love through the self and how desire for the other reconfigures the self—the approach toward increasing intimacy, contact and how intimacy, a sustained complex intimacy radically changes/deranges/mutilates/remodels etc etc etc each other. Like two tornadoes passing through each other, it just became more of a poem about love as a process.
SM: What advice would you give to our readers?
JH: Slaughter a pig, plank okra, join the commune, build a structure with indigenous materials, persecute your enemies, embrace your friends.
Most award winning poetry is just awful.
Buy my book.
For every procedure used to write a poem, develop and implement a counter procedure. You can sort it out at the end.
Pray to your god.
Stay in shape.
Don’t buy my book.
Write.

