New England Review

  • Subscribe/Order
  • Back Issues
    • Vol. 43, No. 4 (2022)
    • Vol. 43, No. 3 (2022)
    • Vol. 43, No. 2 (2022)
    • Vol. 43, No. 1 (2022)
    • Vol. 42, No. 4 (2021)
    • Vol. 42, No. 3 (2021)
    • Vol. 42, No. 2 (2021)
    • Vol. 42, No. 1 (2021)
    • Vol. 41 (2020)
      • Vol. 41, No. 4 (2020)
      • Vol. 41, No. 3 (2020)
      • Vol. 41, No. 2 (2020)
      • Black Lives Matter
      • Vol. 41, No.1 (2020)
    • Vol. 40 (2019)
      • Vol. 40, No. 4 (2019)
      • Vol. 40, No. 3 (2019)
      • Vol. 40, No. 2 (2019)
      • Vol. 40, No 1 (2019)
    • Vol. 39 (2018)
      • Vol. 39, No. 4 (2018)
      • Vol. 39, No. 3 (2018)
      • Vol. 39, No. 2 (2018)
      • Vol. 39, No. 1 (2018)
    • Vol. 38 (2017)
      • Vol. 38, No. 4 (2017)
      • Vol. 38, No. 3 (2017)
      • Vol.38, No. 2 (2017)
      • Vol. 38, No. 1 (2017)
    • Vol. 37 (2016)
      • Vol. 37, No. 4 (2016)
      • Vol. 37, No. 3 (2016)
      • Vol. 37, No. 2 (2016)
      • Vol. 37, No. 1 (2016)
    • Vol. 36 (2015)
      • Vol. 36, No. 4 (2015)
      • Vol. 36, No. 3 (2015)
      • Vol. 36, No. 2 (2015)
      • Vol. 36, No. 1 (2015)
    • Vol. 35 (2014-2015)
      • Vol. 35, No.1 (2014)
      • Vol. 35, No. 2 (2014)
      • Vol. 35, No. 3 (2014)
      • Vol. 35, No. 4 (2015)
    • Vol. 34 (2013-2014)
      • Vol. 34, No. 1 (2013)
      • Vol. 34, No. 2 (2013)
      • Vol. 34, Nos. 3-4 (2014)
    • Vol. 33 (2012-2013)
      • Vol. 33, No. 1 (2012)
      • Vol. 33, No. 2 (2012)
      • Vol. 33, No. 3 (2012)
      • Vol. 33, No. 4 (2013)
    • Vol. 32 (2011-2012)
      • Vol. 32, No. 1 (2011)
      • Vol. 32, No. 2 (2011)
      • Vol. 32, No. 3 (2011)
      • Vol. 32, No. 4 (2012)
    • Vol. 31 (2010)
      • Vol. 31, No. 1 (2010)
      • Vol. 31, No. 2 (2010)
      • Vol. 31, No. 3 (2010)
      • Vol. 31, No. 4 (2010-2011)
    • Vol. 30 (2009)
      • Vol. 30, No. 1 (2009)
      • Vol. 30, No. 2 (2009)
      • Vol. 30, No. 3 (2009)
      • Vol. 30, No. 4 (2009-2010)
    • Vol. 29 (2008)
      • Vol. 29, No. 1 (2008)
      • Vol. 29, No. 2 (2008)
      • Vol. 29, No. 3 (2008)
      • Vol. 29, No. 4 (2008)
    • Vol. 28 (2007)
      • Vol. 28, No. 1 (2007)
      • Vol. 28, No. 2 (2007)
      • Vol. 28, No. 3 (2007)
      • Vol. 28, No. 4 (2007)
    • Vol. 27 (2006)
      • Vol. 27, No. 1 (2006)
      • Vol. 27, No. 2 (2006)
      • Vol. 27, No. 3 (2006)
      • Vol. 27, No. 4 (2006)
    • Vol. 26 (2005)
      • Vol. 26, No. 1 (2005)
      • Vol. 26, No. 2 (2005)
      • Vol. 26, No. 3 (2005)
      • Vol. 26, No. 4 (2005)
    • Vol. 25 (2004)
      • Vol. 25, Nos. 1-2 (2004)
      • Vol. 25, No. 3 (2004)
      • Vol. 25, No. 4 (2004)
    • Vol. 24 (2003)
      • Vol. 24, No. 1 (2003)
      • Vol. 24, No. 2 (2003)
      • Vol. 24, No. 3 (2003)
      • Vol. 24, No. 4 (2004)
  • About
    • Masthead
    • NER Award Winners
    • Press
    • Award for Emerging Writers
    • Readers and Interns
    • Books by our authors
    • Contact
  • Audio
  • Events
  • Submit

Behind the Byline

Michael Martin Shea

March 9, 2022

NER poetry reader David Francis speaks with translator Michael Martin Shea about “from The Somber Station,” a sequence of poems by Liliana Ponce published in NER 42.4.


David Francis: Liliana Ponce, a contemporary Argentine poet, has gained notable acclaim in the Spanish-speaking world, but less has been written about her in English. What do you want us to know about the author, and what draws you to the work you have published here?

Michael Martin Shea: I was initially directed towards Liliana’s work by the poet and editor Reynaldo Jiménez, himself also relatively unknown in English, as is the case for so many wonderful and thrilling poets from the Southern Cone (even while coming from a region and a language that are comparatively overrepresented in US publishing). I met Reynaldo while living in Argentina on a Fulbright fellowship, and he invited me over to his house, which doubles as a repository for tsé-tsé—the small but storied poetry press he runs, and which published two of Liliana’s five collections. I left with a list of names and an enormous stack of books, including Liliana’s Fudekara, which would become the first work I ever attempted to translate.

Initially what drew me to Liliana’s poetry was how different it was from my own. At the time, I was writing poems that were garrulous and irreverent, buzzing around images drawn from postmodern popular culture. Liliana’s are almost the opposite: they’re so careful and methodical in their approach. I’m tempted to say restrained, but that’s not quite true: her poems are quiet only in the way that a simmering pot is quiet. The most important thing to know about Liliana is that she almost never writes stand-alone poems. Beginning with her very first book, Trama Continua, everything she’s published takes the form of these multi-poem sequences. Sometimes they’re only five poems long; sometimes they have as many as twenty parts. I see this as the formal extension of her sense of the poem as a mode of meditation, a vehicle for thought in its purest form. The goal of her writing isn’t to convey an idea—the poem itself is the pursuit, one that she follows with an almost surgical precision.  

One thing that’s neither here nor there as far as the poems are concerned, but which I find interesting, is that Liliana’s long-time husband is the novelist César Aira, author of something like a hundred books (and counting). So in one respect they’re very different: César publishes at a maniacal pace, while Liliana is much more selective. César’s novels are whimsical, talky, and digressive; Liliana’s poems can be very stark, her images almost fleeting. But on a formal level, they’re two artists who use literary form as a philosophical apparatus, a way of asking certain questions. César is compared to Borges all the time, and not unfairly, but I see Liliana’s poems as similarly experimental, in the sense that the work itself is an experiment, an investigation.

Liliana Ponce

DF: The poem you have translated—from “The Somber Station” [“La estación sombría” in Spanish]—provides a profound meditation on the act of writing. The poem claims that “to write today is an emptiness.” What do you think that statement means? Would you make the same argument for translating poetry or, at least, for translating this poem?

MMS: The act of writing is something Liliana comes back to throughout her oeuvre. Perhaps her most famous sequence, Fudekara, was composed during a fourteen-day calligraphy course, and its jumping-off point is the physical act of tracing these Chinese characters. There’s a meta or recursive quality to her work: her poems think about thinking, she writes about writing. And I think at the heart of both of those processes is a blankness, not necessarily in the sense of lack, but in the sense of possibility. As the poem goes on to say, this emptiness at the heart of the form or the passage is also a kind of “maximum intensity.”

In my capacity as a scholar, I’m currently studying what I term “visionary poetics,” a kind of umbrella category for various religious, mystical, or New Age-y tropes and compositional strategies. I don’t know that I’d count Liliana as a visionary poet herself, not in the sense of a writer like Kamau Brathwaite and his explicit invocations of Afro-diasporic religious practices. But Liliana has studied Buddhism and other eastern religions for a long time, she’s a translator and scholar of Noh theater (among other things), and it’s certainly true that this influence makes its way into her poems. There’s a preoccupation with the denial of the self, the self’s erasure: some of the other words that crop up frequently in her work are “abyss, ” “nothingness,” “forgetting.” But I don’t think of her as a dark or brooding poet. So when she writes that “escribir hoy es un vacío,” I think there’s a complicated texture to that word “vacío,” “emptiness.” It doesn’t necessarily have that same negative charge that we might be tempted to put on it. Again, it’s that sense of exploration—what would it really mean to be empty?

DF: In the title, the Spanish word “estación” can mean both “season” and “station,” both words in English relating to time. What do you make of the speaker’s sense of time as it relates to the lyrical composition of self? Why did you choose to translate the poem’s title the way you did?

MMS: This was a big debate for me, and I’m still not entirely convinced that this poem shouldn’t be called “The Somber Season.” But I think having “season” and “station” as two possible translations bifurcates a certain flexibility that the Spanish word “estación” maintains, a word which as you point out can equally refer to a time period or a place. When I hear “station,” I really hear the word’s spatial connotation taking precedence over the temporal, and vice versa with “season.” So this was a moment in the translation process where I felt I was being asked to elevate one connotation over another. Ultimately, I chose place over time, in part because the subsequent sequence in Teoría de la voz y el sueño is entitled “Más allá de la estación sombría,” and I hear that “más allá” [beyond] as privileging the spatial rather than the temporal association.

But as theorists like Doreen Massey have pointed out, space is always-already linked with time—there’s no such thing as pure space. And I think Liliana’s sense of space and time is very complex. Often her poems seem as if they want to alter time, to pause it or, as she writes here, to draw it out, to “feed the creation” of it with words. And then at other moments she adopts a diaristic model where there’s a real time outside the poems that’s being tracked, not only in Fudekara but in another long sequence, Diario, which appeared as a chapbook from Ugly Duckling Presse a few years ago. So I think in some respects her lyric self is always creating itself against these limitations—space and time, but also body—which are at the same time absolutely constitutive of its existence.

DF:

Here is the thirst of the impulses,
beach without memory where the likenesses speak
and even so, sisters, they dissolve in mirages,
like your eyes, like my gaze.

The poem conveys a sense of solitude and, yet, it is also often conversational. Parts 1 and 2, for instance, speak primarily of the first person “I” as it relates to writing and the landscape surrounding the speaker. Part 3 then shifts its gaze to a “you,” and, in the stanza above, the speaker turns to address her “sisters.” For you, how do voice and language come to define the speaker’s relationship with those who hear her?

MMS: It’s funny that you put your finger on this line—it’s one that really threw me off when I first started reading, and then translating, Liliana’s work. As you note, her poems create these moments of heightened lyrical intimacy—as in the second poem of the sequence, where it feels like you’re really inside the void of the speaker’s mind—and then suddenly there are sisters there with you, or there’s a teacher, or you’re given a clear directive which shifts the poem from monological to dialogical. For a long time I didn’t know what to make of this, or how to render some of these asides into a readable English without breaking that lyric spell. And then at a certain point it dawned on me—oh, that’s the point. I think it relates to what I was saying above about space and time: there’s a similar give-and-take between self and other, between speaker and world or even speaker and reader. There’s a lyric self that wants to retreat from the world to that “dream unfamiliar,” and then there’s the intransigent fact of the world.

DF: Your stanzas contain compelling rhythm and musicality, based often on repetition. They reflect—to follow the poem’s words—a sense of “doubling” of the self through musical incantation. How did you come to convey this music? Balancing form and content in your translation, how does music inform your process as translator? 

MMS: It’s almost a cliché to say this, but of course one of the most difficult aspects of translating into English from a romance language is moving from a vocabulary with a lot of shared word endings to one with significantly fewer. In a certain respect, Liliana’s work makes this easier: she rarely (if ever) follows an end-rhyme scheme or a metrical pattern, so the kind of brute force labor required to maintain something like an ABAB pattern isn’t necessary here. But her poems do have a lot of subtle music in them, often created through the repetition of key nouns and phrases (which I read as an outgrowth of her meditative poetics manifested at a formal level, a sort of conceptual deepening by way of redigestion). The extent to which I can maintain that music depends a lot on the individual line. In the third poem, the phrase “like your eyes, like my gaze [como tus ojos, como mi mirada]” is something that repeats verbatim in the original, making it easy to convey in the English (though of course even there you can hear some sonic patterning—“como,” “ojos,” “mi mirada”—that doesn’t make the leap). But then there are lines like this one from the second poem: “With words I feed the creation of time [Con palabras alimento la creación del tiempo].” Ultimately, I couldn’t find a way to maintain that internal alimento/tiempo rhyme. When that happens, I try to take the same principle from that line and see if I can reinsert it elsewhere in the poem: for instance, in the subsequent line, I chose “speak” rather than “talk” for “hablar” to give back some of that music. It’s like I’m extracting a sonic blueprint from the original and trying to recreate it elsewhere with slightly different materials. It’s the balance that’s very difficult to achieve, and while I think that a lot of my own training as a poet and a reader of poetry has helped develop my ear for these patterns, the choices I make in an individual line ultimately comes down to a degree of intuition (though perhaps an intuition schooled through immersion in someone else’s language). In one of her other poems, there’s a final line that reads, “abandonar la idea como se abandona el tiempo.” Abandonar is a cognate, whereas abandonarse means something more like “surrender” or “give in.” But my felt sense was that the sonic pattern here was more important than that conceptual difference—this is the final line of the poem, after all—so I landed on “to abandon the notion as time abandons.” Maybe in a month or so I’ll feel differently—I’m not sure a translation ever achieves a balance that isn’t, in some way, provisional.

DF: If you were to anthologize this poem, what other authors would you include in the anthology?

MMS: I suppose that really depends on what kind of anthology I’m putting together. I think Liliana’s work is particularly interesting in a national or regional context, especially for Anglophone readers. She published her first book in 1976, so she’s writing contemporaneously with figures like Juan Gelman and Raúl Zurita—some of the so-to-speak giants of Latin American poetry in translation. But her work is less overtly indexed to the dictatorships that ruled the Southern Cone during those early years of neoliberalism, and so complicates the often-simplistic picture American readers get where Latin American poetry is all about capital-R Resistance. Similarly, she’s associated with many of the writers of the neobarroco period—her publisher, Jiménez, was included in the canonical Medusario anthology and she traveled in a lot of those circles in the 1990s throughout the ríoplatense region. But she doesn’t really display the kind of linguistic maximalism for which neobaroque writers like Néstor Perlongher or Haroldo de Campos are known. Her work is certainly influenced by that of the great Argentine poet Alejandra Pizarnik: I see Pizarnik’s touch in the way that Liliana’s images will carry you into these unfamiliar spaces and then simply drop away (perhaps a form of what Robert Bly called “leaping poetry”). But where Pizarnik is so focused on the body, in Liliana’s work the body tends to retreat, almost disappearing as thought takes center-stage. Thematically, the way her poems are influenced by religious thought resonates with the work of writers like Héctor Viel Temperlay or Miguel Ángel Bustos (both of whom have been wonderfully, recently translated), though each of those poets moves in a slightly different direction. And then of course if we abandon the regional-linguistic framework, there are all sorts of fun associations to make. Sometimes I hear something like an echo of C. D. Wright in her poems, or Cole Swensen—sometimes even Georg Trakl. This last option is the most interesting to me. I’m trained as a comparativist, and though I take a very historicist approach in my own scholarship, as a reader I’m charmed by the prospect of discarding these traditional frameworks in favor of a different organizing principle.

DF: What was the greatest moment of revelation for you in reading the poem during the translation process?

MMS: I’m not sure there was a distinct moment. I completed a first draft of these poems in December of 2016, so these have been kicking around in my head for over five years. My process for translating Liliana’s work involves doing a very, very quick first draft of the entire sequence, just to establish the basic architecture. And then I go back over the poems more carefully, sitting with the language, trying out various constructions. I make extensive use of dictionaries—both that of the Real Academia Española and various Spanish-to-English ones—to check almost every word or phrase, looking for gradations of meaning and generating a pool of options. And then I assemble a new draft, or various new drafts. In the case of “The Somber Station,” there were few major epiphanies along the way, but many minor ones, born from coming back to the poems with fresh eyes after some time away. I specifically remember the way things clicked into place for me in the first stanza of the fourth poem when I shifted from translating the word “raíz” literally (as “root”) to something more figurative (“cause”).

This was the second sequence of Liliana’s that I translated—Fudekara being the first—so those early drafts bear witness to the process of figuring out how to conjure her voice in English, how to speak this personal, singular language of hers. I just completed a book-length manuscript which was about six years in the making, and while I wouldn’t say it’s become easy to translate her work, it’s certainly become a bit more fluid. The more time I spend immersed in her writing, the more comfortable I am making certain choices which would have stumped me in the early days—not necessarily because I’m a better translator now (though I suspect I am, simply through practice), but because I have a more intimate relationship with her voice. If I were to start on a project by a different author, even one writing in Spanish, I suspect I’d have to internalize a different sense of language and sound. So I guess I think of translation more as a process of sinking deeper and deeper into someone else’s consciousness. A translator is of course actively creating the new text—I don’t want to erase that aspect of the work—but at the same time there’s a certain suspension of the self. For me, that’s part of the appeal.

DF: Section Five refers to “the first dream.” Is this publication part of a series of dreams? Are there other “station” poems we can look forward to reading in your future translations? If so, how will they differ from what we see here?

MMS: That’s a great question, and one that’s hard to answer. Liliana’s poems deal with dreams a lot. As she says here, “what one wants from the air is a dream unfamiliar / with the cloth of shadows;” in a later poem, she writes, “I am the dreaming woman / I want to be the dream.” And even though she plays with diaristic forms which suggest a kind of real outside that the poems are indexed to, there are other moments when it feels like the poem itself exists as a kind of alternate real, like a dream. “A beach without memory where the likenesses speak.” Maybe the best way to think about this is that dreams are a kind of emptiness, like writing is.

As I mention above, the sequence that immediately follows this one is called “Beyond the Somber Station,” which in some ways expands on the ideas here, and in other ways goes beyond: both Shinto and ancient Rome make an appearance in that suite. That’s part of the full-length manuscript that will hopefully soon find a home. And Fudekara, which is also obsessed with writing and what it means to write, is going to be released as a chapbook by Cardboard House Press later this year, which is really exciting—I’ve loved that sequence since I first read it, and I can’t wait for an English version to be in the world.


David Francis, a reader of poetry manuscripts for NER, serves as dean of Grace Hopper College at Yale University, where he teaches in the Program in Ethnicity, Race, and Migration. He has received a Fulbright fellowship to translate poems by the Colombian writer José Asunción Silva into English. His translations or poems have appeared in Inventory, The FSG Book of 20th-Century Latin American Poetry, Guernica, Exchanges, The Brooklyn Rail, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and elsewhere. He is the translator of Footwork (Circumference Books, 2021), the selected poems of the acclaimed Cuban author Severo Sarduy.

Filed Under: Featured, News & Notes, Poetry, Translations Tagged With: Behind the Byline, David Francis, Liliana Ponce, Michael Martin Shea

Behind the Byline

Leslie Sainz

March 4, 2022

Leslie Sainz, whose poems “Self-Determination Theory” and “Propaganda Ghazal” appear in NER 42.4, talks with NER poetry editor Jennifer Chang about poetic space, ancestry, and her new role as NER‘s managing editor.


Jennifer Chang: I was struck by how space and syntax relate to and complicate each other in both “Self-Determination Theory” and “Propaganda Ghazal.” “Self-Determination Theory” depicts the domestic spaces that organize families, but with the twist: the mother in the living room and the father in the kitchen. Meanwhile, neither poem ever forgets the spaces of nations, the U. S. and Cuba specifically. Syntax separates these varied spaces into discrete lines, even as the formal space of the stanza binds what might not be literally (or even comfortably) together. For example, the taut, tense lines of “Self-Determination Theory” locked into a narrow single stanza, or in “Propaganda Ghazal” the radif of “side” playfully turning the poem this way and that until finally arriving at the “right side.” It’s exciting how you move your reader through spaces that are on the page, in the imagination, and across the global stage of history and geography. Even the Gertrude Stein epigraph, to me, struck me as an encroachment into the various spaces configured in that poem. What does space mean to you and what role does it play in your formal and rhetorical choices? Is it just me, or are these poems also private cartographies, the maps of Leslie Sainz’s mind and heart?

Leslie Sainz: It’s every writer’s dream to be read this closely, this carefully—thank you. I’ve come to understand space as a cunning thing—both material and abstract—able to transfigure to meet the desires of the poem. But it’s also beholden to time. In the poem, as in life, space is an entity and a relationship one can nurture, neglect, trace. I feel a particular kind of anxiety when coaxing space to do what I perceive the poem to want, and I try to honor space as the living memorial it is. It’s sort of like groundskeeping, you have to tend to the aesthetics of an area but also its functionality.

I have a strong affinity for associative work, for the paratactic sentence. It can feel as though there are whole lifetimes between thought A and thought B in my mind. Among friends and beloveds, I famously have a poor sense of direction, though I agree with your assessment that these poems are maps. “Self-Determination Theory” and “Propaganda Ghazal” were written a day apart in October 2020 and, perhaps in lieu of compasses, there are fistfuls of breadcrumbs between them.

JC: Follow-up question: Gertrude Stein?

LS: My fascination with Stein is boundless. I’d been studying Tender Buttons and Harryette Mullen’s Recyclopedia for a new persona project when these two poems materialized. I am deeply suspicious of poetry that presents its ideas as unquestionable, and at the time, I feared my current manuscript wasn’t doing all that it could to match the nuance of its subjects. “Self-Determination Theory” and “Propaganda Ghazal” were important exercises in intellectually disinheriting myself. 

It’s interesting for me to consider your question about space in the context of Stein’s physical legacy, i.e., as a space-maker for fellow expatriates, and a self-proclaimed propagandist for Vichy France. The spaces she renounced, the spaces she saw fit for destruction. She left maps many of us pretend we do not know how to read.

JC: The father in both poems is rendered powerless, and he haunted me long after my first reading. By situating him in the kitchen in “Self-Determination Theory,” you upend gender conventions about the place of men and he’s then cuckolded by the United States, an occasion about which “though he is a jealous man, / he says nothing.” He’s similarly silenced in “Propaganda Ghazal” because we never learn the words to the Yanquis saying, though he “repeats” it in the first line, and then he’s, in a sense, vanquished from the poem. That powerlessness, I suspect, isn’t merely content, as there’s a lyric starkness to your work that suggests much is left unsaid. In my imagination, there’s a world of words that belongs to the father alone that might never be accessed. How does the interplay between power and patriarchy inform your poetics generally and your book project in particular?

LS: Fathers are especially good at haunting, aren’t they? As the daughter of Cuban exiles, I was made possible by estrangement and am a casualty of its compounding. I have mourned and continue to mourn, quite palpably, the lives I have lost by coming into being between “no longer” and “never was.” I’m also keenly aware of the privileges gifted to me by this liminality, and all of this—the historical, the political-personal—exists because of the mechanisms of power (both perceived and de facto), patriarchal dogma, and machismo. At present, I’m most interested in critiquing power and patriarchy by deferring to their inverses, which appear, to me, as spiritual connection, and partnership. 

My book project, titled Have You Been Long Enough at Table, is named after an unassuming line of dialogue from The Old Man and the Sea, which is itself a monument to hegemonic masculinity. I wrote Have You Been Long Enough at Table with the hopes of disrupting the binary discourse that dominates Cuba-U.S. relations, and of honoring my imagined past, present, and future as a result of “the revolution within the revolution,” or, the emancipation of Cuban women. Over time, the poems revealed that my family system could be considered a microcosm of the very violence that displaced us. 

JC: I’m a first generation Chinese American. That I am a poet bewilders my immigrant parents, who have never stopped asking me when I will write a novel. To them a story—prose fiction—makes sense, while a poem does not. How did you come to poetry and what does it mean to you to be writing poems as a first generation American?

LS: That parental preoccupation with sense-making, as you’ve described it, is very familiar to me. Though my immigrant parents are obsessive about their children securing the best credentials possible, I’m fortunate that they never actually enforced constraints on which fields of study we could pursue. I am grateful to come from a culture that reveres poets, to have been raised by parents who understand that poets can, and have, led revolutions. But I still have to, everytime I sit down to write, silence the voices—planted by my parents and perpetuated by my learned perfectionism—that insist I need to win X, publish in Y, and secure Z. No authentic artistic practice can cohabitate with these expectations. Instead, I actively build and adhere to systems and rituals that disorient me, in the best way, from anything that is not the page. For me, writing poems as a first generation American is to reject outcome thinking.

Ironically, the first poem I ever wrote was a mandatory display of nationalism. In third or fourth grade, our teacher tasked each of us with writing a poem in celebration of America for a county-wide writing contest. What did we know of America then? Of indoctrination and forced assimilation? I’m somewhat ashamed to admit that my poem was selected as one of the winners, and I was awarded a brand new bicycle and an obligatory photo-op with the then-mayor. When you come to something so young and are rewarded significantly for your efforts, there’s a biological impulse to chase that praise economy. Now, in every poem I write, I’m actively trying to redeem myself for that first poem. The bicycle, a kind of trophy, is still in my parent’s garage.

JC: Lastly, as a fan of your work, and because I am always eager for more poet friends, I am over the moon that you’ve joined New England Review as our new managing editor—congratulations and welcome! What do you love about being an editor, and in what ways does your editorial mind engage with your writerly mind (and vice versa)? What are your hopes for NER?

LS: It’s  an absolute delight to serve as NER’s managing editor, and to call you a colleague and new friend!

Long before I became comfortable calling myself a poet (I still sort of shudder at the title), I proudly embraced the role of editor. Aside from the author and their guides, I can’t think of a vantage point closer to the process of writing and all its mysticism than that of the editor. This positioning—the exchange of trust that it requires—is a privilege, one that I don’t take lightly. Discovering diverse, challenging, and ambitious writing; fostering generations of new writers and readers—I’m grateful to be able to make a living doing what I love. 

My editorial mind was once a saboteur to my writerly mind, though years of exposure have softened their relationship. Now, my editorial mind is more discerning than it is debilitating, and I hope its experience helps me recognize and avoid some of the tropes of the contemporary US style. My writerly mind humanizes my editorial mind, preventing it from forgetting the labor, costs, and sacrifices that created the work in front of me. There are many other ways in which these hemispheres interact, though these are, I think, the most mutually beneficial.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak about my hopes for NER under my tenure! I would love to see NER become more widely recognized as a journal committed to uplifting the work of emerging writers and, more often than not, placing them in conversation with their literary heroes and ancestors. I believe NER to be a safe place for complex work—complexity of thought, language, feeling, etc.—and I hope our readers know that we trust that they’re capable of engaging with that complexity as they do everyday by leading their complicated lives.

As for my personal plans, I hope to fully usher NER into the digital age, replete with more opportunities for community-building and the exploration of craft. I’m also a big fan of our translations and international portfolios, and look forward to producing more of these features.


Jennifer Chang is the author of The History of Anonymity and Some Say the Lark, winner of the 2018 William Carlos Williams Award. Her poems have appeared or are forthcoming in The New Yorker, A Public Space, Poetry, Georgia Review, The Believer, The New York Times, and Yale Review, and she has published essays on poetry and culture in New Literary History, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Asian American Literature and Culture, The Volta, Blackwell’s Companion to the Harlem Renaissance, New England Review, and Los Angeles Review of Books.

Filed Under: Featured, News & Notes, Poetry Tagged With: Behind the Byline

Meet the Readers

Tiana Nobile

February 25, 2022

“I was excited for the opportunity to read what people are thinking and feeling in the age of COVID-19, climate change, political unrest, etc., etc., etc. What are our obsessions, fears, desires, and griefs right now?”


Tell us a little bit about yourself. Where are you from and what do you do when you’re not reading for NER? 

I was born in Daejeon, South Korea, grew up in the suburbs outside New York City, and have been calling New Orleans home for the past thirteen years. When I’m not reading for NER, you can usually find me in the kitchen making bread or pasta, going for walks on the bayou, or hanging out with my partner and our cat, Empy.

What made you decide to be a reader for NER, and how long have you been on staff?

I can’t believe it’s been almost a year since I started reading for NER! I was excited for the opportunity to read what people are thinking and feeling in the age of COVID-19, climate change, political unrest, etc. etc. etc. What are our obsessions, fears, desires, and griefs right now? I love the insight reading offers into the sense of the moment we find ourselves in.

Have you ever read a submission that later got selected for publication? 

Yes! “Thank You for Reminding Me” by Emma Trelles and “Frances” by Burnside Soleil.

What is your reading process like? What do you look for in a submission? 

I’m looking for a piece with emotional resonance, striking imagery, and creative syntax. In terms of process, I read every submission at least once. For the ones that stand out, I wait a week or two before returning to see if they still hold the same impact or if my reading of it has changed or evolved in any way. After the second reading, I’ll go back and read closely once or twice more before making a final decision. This way, I’m sure I feel strongly about a piece before sending it up the ladder.

Of the pieces you’ve read at NER—whether in the magazine or among the submissions—which was your favorite or most memorable to you personally? 

I read both Emma Trelles’s and Burnside Soleil’s poems during my first round of submissions, and both were super memorable. I loved walking through Burnside’s poem, the visceral experience of people interacting with nature. And the diction and sonic qualities of Emma’s poem lit up all of my senses when I first read it.

How has reading for NER influenced your own writing/creative pursuits? 

I haven’t been writing much lately, but I am reading a bunch, and it’s been lovely to integrate NER submissions as part of my reading rotation.

What do you read for pleasure? Is there something you’re reading at the moment that you would recommend?

I’m a member of the adoptee collective, The Starlings Collective, and our book club pick this month is Surviving the White Gaze by Rebecca Carroll, which is a memoir about growing up as a black transracial adoptee in rural New Hampshire. Highly recommend! I’m also trying to read more classics this year and just finished Giovanni’s Room, my first James Baldwin – soooo good.


Our staff readers, all volunteers, play an essential role in our editorial process and in our mission to discover new voices in contemporary literature. A full list of staff readers is available on our masthead.

Filed Under: Featured, News & Notes, Poetry, Staff Reader Profile Tagged With: Tiana Nobile

NER Poetry Celebration

Video now available

October 20, 2021

If you missed our poetry celebration live on Zoom, you can now catch it here on Vimeo!

During this reading from the current issue of New England Review—Rick Barot’s last issue as poetry editor—we celebrated Rick’s seven years at the helm and welcomed new poetry editor Jennifer Chang, who read a poem from the forthcoming issue.

Featured in this reading are Philipe AbiYouness, Kaveh Akbar, Jennifer Grotz, Jenny Johnson, Dana Levin, Cate Marvin, Wayne Miller, Matthew Olzmann, Carl Phillips, Kevin Prufer, and Paul Tran. With thanks to Joe DeFelice from Middlebury’s media services.

Filed Under: Events, Featured, News & Notes, Poetry Tagged With: Carl Phillips, Carolyn Kuebler, Cate Marvin, Dana Levin, Jennifer Chang, Jennifer Grotz, Jenny Johnson, Kaveh Akbar, Kevin Prufer, Matthew Olzmann, Paul Tran, Philipe AbiYouness, Rick Barot, Wayne Miller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 24
  • Next Page »


Vol. 44, No. 1

Subscribe

NER Digital

Tomas Venclova

Literature & Democracy

Tomas Venclova

“A principled stance against aggression should never turn into blind hatred. Such hatred does not help anyone to win . . .”

Sign up for our newsletter

Click here to join our list and receive occasional news and always-great writing.

categories

Navigation

  • Subscribe/Order
  • Support NER
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Audio
  • Back Issues
  • Emerging Writers Award
  • Events
  • Podcast

ner via email

Stories, poems, essays, and web features delivered to your Inbox.

Categories

Copyright © 2023 · facebook · twitter

 

Loading Comments...