Today an interview with Twitter poet Margaret Ingraham--@InPoetweet--who
began the InPoetweet project in February, 2012.
Can you give us a brief synopsis of the InPoetweet project?
Absolutely. I am committed to
composing and posting one poetweet each day for a year. Once I have completed
poetweet number 366 – because I began the project in a leap year and feel duty
bound to producing that additional tweet--- I will have come to the end of this
first phase of my project. I say first phase, because I have found the project
so positive, so brimming with possibilities, so conducive to exploration and
experimentation, so exhilarating, that I do not know whether I will be able to
bring it to its ultimate conclusion at the end of the year. As of this writing
I have completed and posted 230 poetweets, so I am past the midpoint. In
February when I began I was not certain if I would be able to sustain the
project beyond the first month. But each day my allegiance grows and my belief
in the importance of the project increases.
Do you think the experience of consistency in tweeting is a crucial
element to understanding the range/repetition/reoccurring images that appear in
your tweet poems? Does this allow us to
see them both as individual poems and as an overall collection of poems that
work together?
The short answer to your question
is yes. Taken together, the poetweets provide a mother lode in terms of examining
the connection between art and artist, life circumstances and subject matter
and mode of expression, experience and point of view, etc. In tweets, as in
longer poems, I return again and again to the same words, cadences, themes,
images, turns of phrase. These are unique signatures, or fingerprints…I hope
each new setting--which is what each and every poetweet is--enhances, enlarges
or narrows, and nuances that which appears with frequency.
I believe that every poetweet
stands alone as a viable individual poem. Certainly the quality of writing
varies from tweet to tweet. But the same can be said of my other work as well,
as is true for every poet. When I take time to read the entire corpus of my
daily poetweets, I do perceive a wholeness (what you term a collection)
emerging. Frankly, I would like to see this body of work as a print collection
some day, and I spend a good deal of time contemplating how it would be best
organized and arrayed.
My process is to focus primarily
on that one day’s tweet and not on what has come before (and certainly not what
will follow – because I don’t know that until the next day comes). There have
been a couple of occasions when I have worked to produce a short related
sequence, but that is the exception.
Can you share some of your thought process behind beginning the project? How did you initially perceive Twitter as a viable
means for form poetry? Do you think it
is a viable forum? Why or why not?
This is fun to answer, because I did not intend to begin a
Twitter poems project at all. In fact, I had never tweeted, nor did I think I
ever would. But I was at a friend’s birthday party one February night when a
pair of strangers (seriously) suggested I tweet some poems. I responded as
though I were interested in the idea but was saying to myself that it was a ridiculous
notion. Or so I thought. But by the time I got home I was asking myself
questions and I powered up the computer and began googling. By the next day I
had found a definition of poetweet, searched out poets who were tweeting poems
and established my Twitter account. I had also tweeted one poem, boldly
announcing my intention to tweet one poem every day for a year. Now, mind you,
no one was looking or listening then, but I was determined to be true to my
word. If nothing else, I thought forcing myself into a daily routine of
tweeting would be an excellent discipline and skill- honing exercise. I was
right about that.
Before that night in February I had erroneously viewed
twitter as a forum for what I ignorantly and arrogantly characterized as
nonsense and narcissism. I wasn’t much interested then, nor am I now, in
knowing people’s every movement, meal, thought--you know what I mean. At the
same time, I was keenly aware of the reach, and the potential, of social media.
I began almost instantly to think of it as a tool. What a marvelous way to
engage folks with poetry who otherwise would steer clear of it. I was and am
not the only person thinking that way and using the medium for posting poems. So far I have not been able to find anyone
else committed to tweeting a poem everyday at the present time. If there are, I
hope this blog will reveal them.
And, yes, I do think that Twitter is a viable and vibrant
means for form poetry. Poetry, as the late Muriel Rukeyser knew so well, is
different from other modes of communication. It demands unique things of the
reader: full consciousness, complete and sustained attention, response. It asks
that we plunge deeply into ourselves. At first blush, those requirements seemed
inconsistent with the Twitter culture and mentality. With further
contemplation, and maybe imagination, I began to see that as an opportunity and
the tweet as a means to create incremental steps toward a broader appreciation
of poetry with a social media audience.
But that was only part of my purpose. I want to emphasize at
this point that my central objective in this project is not about the medium so
much as it is about working in the form. The medium is simply a platform,
defining the limits and enabling the transmission/publication/sharing of the
poetweet. The work should stand within and without the platform. The poet
should not serve the medium any more than the poet should serve the form. Media
and form are tools to serve the poet.
How does your creative process differ with your poem tweets as compared
to your usual writing process? Do you
commit to composing a “new” tweet each day or do you create tweet poems from
other longer work?
There are days I have a particular idea, image or purpose in
mind, but more often than not I rely on a kind of inspiration I guess you could
say, as hokey as that may seem. An image, a line, a cadence is given to me, or
comes to me as I read, gaze, contemplate, listen or pray, and that is the
departure point.
But to me the most interesting part of your question is the
definition that you seem to assign to “new.” Every daily tweet is new,
regardless of its origin. Most of them – and I think this is getting to the
heart of your inquiry – do emerge entirely fresh. Sometimes I do have to go
actively looking for ideas. My own work is one, but only one, of the sources I
consult. When I do I might borrow an image, yet never have I lifted a 140
character sequence from an existing poem. In my opinion, the creative process
is most often about the work of recreating, recasting, reviewing, renewing and revising.
It’s my view, but the thought and the practice are certainly not original with
or unique to me. Actually, I tweeted about it recently. Here is what I
wrote:
I surmise it was from jealousy
that Stravinsky said Vivaldi wrote but one concerto over 100 times I say the
true work of genius is to revise
And here (ha, ha) is what
that tweet looks like when it has been ever so slightly revised:
It was from jealousy I surmise
That Stravinsky said Vivaldi wrote But one concerto Over 100 times I say The
true work of genius Is to revise
I notice that each tweet poem seems to be
close to or exactly 140 characters. Do
you try to adhere to 140 characters per tweet?
How do you find working within this character constraint?
My first tweeted poem--which represented my Ars Poetica of poetweeting I guess you
could say--was by sheer luck and coincidence exactly 140 characters. The next
several contained fewer characters. But by day ten, after I had done more
research on the form itself and developed a clearer sense of my own purpose –
that is, progressed from thinking of my daily poetweeting as a helpful personal
exercise and discipline to understanding it to be a serious poetic project to which
I was committing myself – I determined that each would be precisely 140
characters. Since that day each poetweet has been. There was one exception: I was the victim of a slip of the finger that
caused me to hit the tweet button before I had finished composing. But I have
the correct(ed) version of that particular poetweet in hard copy and will
substitute it if the work ever appears in a traditional print format, which is
my hope.
The reason for my strict adherence to 140 characters is
twofold. First, the generally accepted definitions of poetweet that I can find
out there in cyberspace, in places like the Urban Dictionary, all define it as
conforming to that strict 140 character form. And the form itself, as well as
my contributing in whatever small way I can to its ultimate and lasting
acceptance and adoption as a serious poetic form-- both in and beyond the
Twitter medium -- are largely what this project is about.
For me, as for many other poets, form can be extraordinarily
liberating. So I find working within the character limit energizing. It demands
my immediate attention to every word I consider, and it requires me to make an
absolute and final decision about which is essential and which is not. In no
place is Coleridge’s well known definition of poetry, “best words in the best
order,” more strenuously tested than in the creation of a poetweet.
Additionally, the character limit assists me in bringing the poem to closure.
That is critical to the success of every poem, regardless of form. What I am doing
on and learning from Twitter helps me generally perfect my skills as a poet
and, therefore, influences all my work.
I have also noticed that your poem tweets seem to follow a general
pattern. Unlike other Twitter poets, you
seem to refrain from using abbreviation or symbol. Can you discuss the reason for this
choice? How do you think we read or
respond differently to a tweet poem that has symbol, abbreviation or
technoabbreviation (as in LOL, OMG, etc.)?
The generally accepted definition of poetweet clearly states
that such are not permitted in the poetweet (although standard abbreviations
such as contractions are permissible). So I comply. But it is not simply a
matter of observing someone else’s definition or standard. It has more to do
with my voice. I write in my own vernacular, and that manner of expression is
just not part of my lexicon. I don’t speak, text or think that way, and neither
do many of my contemporaries. So, yes, absolutely some readers respond
differently to a tweet that has symbol, abbreviation or technoabbreviation. In
my case, I found those limiting in terms of audience. The importance and role
of audience is something that poetweet has emphasized and clarified for me.
Attention to audience may be a key difference in process between poetweeting
and other writing.
Can you also discuss your use of the capital letter? In some tweet poems your use seems to denote
a linebreak, in others not as much. Can
you share your process and a few examples with us?
You have zeroed in on something I have been experimenting
with and talking to myself about. From the outset I struggled with the
issue/question of line breaks: Should I use them? If so, how would I indicate them? Insertion
of a capital letter at the beginning of a new line does seem appropriate, and
for the most part now I follow that formula.
Sometimes things get confusing if the poetweet also contains proper
nouns, as many of my tweets do.
Line breaks, as we poets know, are as essential to the
success of a poem as image or metaphor. Or at least that is my belief; I am
pretty obsessive about placing them with precision. The line moves the poem
forward, and line breaks create the balance and/or tension between the static
and dynamic.
What have been some of the results of this project that have surprised
you? For example, have certain poems
been retweeted more than others? What
has your connection with other tweeps been like? Have others written you or messaged you about
their reactions to your project? What
has been your favorite story so far?
Results that have surprised me? That the project seems to
resonate to the extent that it has. Maybe folks are just being polite when I
tell them what I am doing, but so far my project has met with almost universal
interest or curiosity from those with whom I have discussed the idea or with
whom I share the poetweets.
Another delightful surprise: one of my friends from
grammar school days, who now teaches high school English in Georgia, recently
asked if she could share my project and tweets with her students who worked on
the school’s literary magazine. Hooray! It was the hope of engaging young
people in a new way with poetry that initially drew me to this project.
My friends who are poets are almost always intrigued and are
a constant source of encouragement. Other unexpected gratification comes from
Facebook, where my poetweets automatically publish each day. There has
not been one day that I haven’t received at least one “like,” often from folks
who have never expressed any interest in poetry and some who have told me
outright that they don’t understand poetry.
I love to review the “likes,” not just for the personal affirmation it
brings but also to see which poetweets garner the most acceptance. That teaches
me a lot about audience preference, and it invariably surprises me. Surprises
are rife with instruction.
Here is perhaps the most enthusiastically embraced poetweet,
and that did not surprise me:
I asked the wind Are you enemy or
friend First you spread forest blaze Then you send rains Wind told me What I am
few know What I do all see
Is there anything else that you would like to add or discuss?
Just this. That the brevity of the poetweet form should not
be confused with a license to regard short prose or conversational speech as a
substitute for poetry. I work to constrain this inclination by bringing every
poetic tool and asset I use in longer work to bear in poetweets. That means
that most of the literary devices and figures of speech that characteristically
inform longer works should and must find their place in the poetweet. Or so I
believe. That means not only strong images and compact diction but also simile,
metaphor, rhythm (and sometimes rhyme), metonymy, allusion, assonance,
consonance, alliteration and the music of the line – with music for me the most
difficult to achieve artfully. These are the characteristic elements, the
building blocks of poetry, regardless of form.
Thank you so much, Margaret!
MARGARET B. (Peggy) INGRAHAM is the is co-editor of the
anthology Entering the Real World: VCCA
Poets on the VCCA, patterned after the Best American Poet series. The
volume was described by Poet Laureate of Virginia Kelly Cherry as a “splendid,
intriguing anthology” whose contributors are “all important poets, all of them
exciting and adept.”
Ingraham, who currently serves as Chair of the VCCA Fellows
Council, is the recipient of an Academy of American Poets Award and the 2006
Sam Ragan Award. Over 100 of her poems have recently appeared in national and
international print and online journals. Her book, This Holy Alphabet, a series of lyric poems based on her original
translation from the Hebrew of psalm 119 (Paraclete Press 2009), was critically
acclaimed as “a jewel.” Her second chapbook, Proper Words for Birds (Finishing Line Press, 2009), was nominated
for a 2010 Library of Virginia Award in poetry. Her collaborative work with
composer Gary Davison, entitled “Shadows
Tides” a choral symphony, was commissioned and performed by Choralis at the
National Presbyterian Church in Washington, DC, on September 11, 2011 to
commemorate the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001.
Margaret (Peggy) lives and works in Alexandria, Virginia,
where she currently serves as Executive Vice President of the National
Foundation to End Senior Hunger.
To follow Margaret on Twitter: TraVersing Splendor@InPoetweet
To friend Margaret on Facebook: Margaret B. Ingraham
To learn more about Margaret and read some other poetry, visit
her website: www.margaretbingraham.com
photo by Julie E. Bloemeke
Tomorrow an interview with Reb Livingston, curator of the
Bibliomancy Oracle.
--Julie E. Bloemeke