Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Carving Out Their Own Artistic Space: In Conversation with Di Brandt, Susan Holbrook and Daphne Marlatt


Previously published in Kaleidoscope Vol. 3.1 (2002)

After an impressive reading by Di Brandt, Susan Holbrook and Daphne Marlatt at MacKensie Hall, Windsor, we search for a quiet room where we can talk undisturbed. We find an empty courtroom, long since abandoned. The walls are covered in dark wood panels and the judge’s bench is an ominous reminder of patriarchal authority. It is the perfect setting for female poets to discuss the gender politics of language and place.

Dawn: How important are cultural politics in your writing? Do you consciously engage with issues such as feminism in your work?

Di: It’s not that I am trying to be political or trying to address certain issues. It’s more that I came to writing with not having a sense of permission. In order to give myself permission I had to encounter all these various obstacles, which became very liberating and transforming. I had to fight very hard in myself and in language for a space that could be mine to play around in. Some people in the other room, just after the reading, were asking why girls in the creative writing seminar are so shy and don’t want to read their poetry and the guys don’t want to stop. I was thinking how girls are still brought up to think that speaking in public in transgressive. This is because physical and symbolic public spaces are owned by men mostly.

Daphne: Just look around. This is the perfect room to demonstrate male authority. [laughter]

Di: Take something like roads. Who makes the roads? Who plans the roads? Who fixes them? And if a woman ever has a flat tire on a road a man will come rushing to her aid because she is not supposed to be there by herself.

Dawn: So then how does a woman carve out her own artistic space in a male-dominated world?

Daphne: She has to speak out first of all. It takes nerve to do that. I remember the first reading I was invited to read in. I said, “no I can’t read my work,” and one of the guys in the group said, “oh come on I’ll read it for you.” It was awful. I hated it. [laughter] I vowed I would never let anyone else read my work again. But it is not just speaking out orally, like at a reading. Writing is also a speaking out because you are making your thought and the way you see the world public. There’s a need to have women support you in doing that. When I was a young writer there weren’t that many women mentors around. In fact, there were none. They were all male. I had a strong sense, even when I was just starting out, that I saw the world differently than they did. I kept trying to see it the way they did, because I kept thinking that that was what made you a poet. But I couldn’t. I knew I saw differently. Certainly one of the biggest differences was when I was having a child. Then it was so clear. Then I was really in my body. I could see that everything about life, as I experienced it — being pregnant, giving birth — was so different than the way things have been separated in the discourse. So having foremothers, recognizing who your literary foremothers are, I think, is a very important step to take. It took me a long time to realize that, but when I did it was fascinating. A whole world opened up for me. You have a sense than of a lineage. You have a sense of continuity. And of course there are women writing now who are your peers, and it is important to have a sense of solidarity with them and to work to bring all of that work forward. I’ve certainly been active in doing that in the past. Not quite so active now, but even the kinds of courses I’ve been teaching — writing by women, mother-daughter relationships, women’s studies — all of that helps.

Dawn: Can you talk a bit about a female writing community, or specifically a lesbian writing community?

Susan: In one model we learn about the anxiety of influence and how we are supposed to hate out literary forefathers, and make our own way in the literary world. Another feminist model is to find out about our literary foremothers, but also to think synchronically so that we can build something here. In terms of a lesbian community, I think it depends on where you are. When I was living in Vancouver that was available to me because it is a bigger city and a bigger gay community. There were readings every two weeks. Those things were built right into the community. Now it has gotten to be more electronic, or through letters or readings. And, of course, we’re lucky to have Daphne here with us for a while. But it’s not the same. We have to really make an effort at keeping in touch.

Daphne: It seems to me that things have changed, that we use to have much more of an in-the-flesh sense of community by being in a specific city. What we use to call a “scene.” It seems much more dispersed now. Lesbian writers are in contact with each other right across the continent, but as you say, through letters and email, through reading each other’s books.

Dawn: Your writing is very centered on the body. How much are you influenced by French feminists?

Di: The idea of writing from the body is such a fascinating thing. When I was starting to write that was the fashionable thing. We were all asking, “what does that mean to write from the body?”

Dawn: Did this facilitate the kind of experimentation found in your work — the technical experimentation?

Di: That’s an interesting question. I’d have to say yes, although it is hard to explain exactly how. Well, one way it happened for me was to pay attention to the breath. When I read my poems out loud they were always way too fast. So I tried specifically to slow them down by using a couplet line — spacing in between, period, space. That was one of the reasons that those poems got flipped over into the opposite. It excavated a lot of knowledge from me about myself and my past experiences, and also my present — who I was. I later asked how did that happen, and realized of yeah, it was the breath. It was slowing down the breath, and trying to really breathe through my body and realizing how it was connected to the mind. It was like a mantra. I was studying yoga at the time, and I kept thinking this is exactly the same as how I’m doing a poem.

Daphne: It has to do with embodied language in the sense that you’re moving through language as a body, the body of language. You’re sounding its sound body; you’re playing with its meaning body. And when you are doing yoga you are aware of your whole body. It is not something that you are doing just intellectually. You are totally in your body. You have to be. You’re aware of your breathing. You’re aware of how all muscles feel. I keep thinking of Cixous’ line about when a woman speaks in public all of her in there. All that aliveness and nervousness is present. Everything is called upon. Somehow I think that is part of it.

Di: Yes, that was part of it. And also, part of it was rediscovering orality. I came from basically an oral culture, and then I went to this English school where we had to learn to be quiet. We were told to be quiet, don’t fidget and don’t say anything because we were writing now, and this kind of silence coincided with me learning this foreign language. I learnt that my culture did not exist in books. It wasn’t seen as real in the official discourse. When I was writing poetry again — well, I always was writing secretly — but when I was in my thirties and I was doing it to show to people I rediscovered the way I learned language, which was not English and was not in a textual frame of reference. It was oral. I started remembering that connection with the body, and I started thinking how everyone learns writing that way — as a silencing of the body. But they don’t do it quite so much now in school. They try to keep a little more sense of sound in writing. There were a couple of years when they tried to teach phonetic spelling.

Daphne: There is that whole sense of what Abram is talking about in his book about once you move to an alphabetic language you have much more of a cutoff from the world, about being part of the body of the world.

Di: He says that, but what a lot of us are discovering is that you can put that body back in. You can put that connection back in, even if you are writing it down. He talks a bit about that in terms of place, about re-inhabiting place, which is another step from re-inhabiting the body.

Dawn: I wanted to ask you about the playfulness of language, the puns and humour evident in your work?

Susan: Well, I’ve listened to Di and Daphne talk about excavating language and about sounding language, and I think that is part of what I am doing. Humour is one way to approach language in an interrogative and exploratory way, because a pun makes you jump into two places at once. I’m not using language as some sort of transparent vehicle or tool to express ideas that I have fully formed. I am working through language, and humour is one of the ways I can make it prismatic. I can explore it and see which way it is going to take me. I think also, sometimes I’m dealing with difficult issues — invisibility, coming out, people’s anger — all of these things that are manifested in and through language are painful and humour is a way to survive while talking about them. Sometimes I wonder if I am sidestepping or not able to be honest about things enough, and humour is a bit of a crutch. But at least it keeps me going.

Daphne: Part of humour is suddenly looking at the other side of something, and your humour does that a lot. It is an opening kind of humour.

Dawn: Can you talk about the sensuousness of the language that you use, and the idea of seducing the reader into the landscape of your poetry.

Daphne: [To Susan] The way you run language together is very sensual. Those little language chants that happen between the narrative, or the antidotal parts, of your title poem are like jazz rifts in language. The same with the poem “Girl Watching.” There is so much there that is bouncing off language in a very sensual way.

Susan: We often talk about the erotics of language, or theories on the pleasures of the text, but we don’t talk about them very specifically and I’m so curious to see if we can. What are the bits of friction between letters or between words? What is the pull and push of the tease specifically? We talk about it in a really vague, nebulous way. We know when something seems erotic or sensuous in terms of sound or in content, but what are the mechanics of that?

Di: It has been theorized, in MotherTongue and other places, about the attraction between words and how they call each other up. How they like each other. [laughter]

Daphne: But they haven’t talked about it in terms of friction. That intrigues me. Say more about friction.

Susan: [To Daphne] When I said that I was thinking about your work with Nicole Brossard. Sometimes there is negative friction between your own language and yourself, or between English and French.

Daphne: The words slide off each other. It is not a transparent translation. That is an interesting way to talk about it — the friction, the rubbing up against and sliding off of. That is what intrigues me about admitting more silence into a piece. You get that friction and that rub and then everything radiates out into silence. I keep wanting to use musical terms, to talk about how it resonates into silence.

Susan: You seem to be talking about distance, and how that distance can be so delicious… and the long pause.

Daphne: Especially if the two bits of discourse before and after the pause are different — different kinds of discourse, different verbal textures.

Susan: There is so much echoing in the unspoken.