Scott Inniss is a recent graduate of the doctoral program in English literature at the University of British Columbia. Current work includes interviews with poets Kevin Davies, Dennis Denisoff, and Louis Cabri (the last of which is forthcoming in
Tripwire). He is also in the final stages of completing a critical monograph on
Humorous Tendentious Poetics: Radical Punchlines and Contemporary Poetry. He lives in Strathcona, Vancouver. He is the author of two recent poetry chapbooks:
Back Shelve (above/ground press) and
Mean Means (Model Press).
His poem “Spring Breakout” appears in the forty-third issue of
Touch the Donkey.
Q: Tell me about the poem “Spring Breakout.”
A: As I understand it, “Spring Breakout” is a mashup or clustering but also recombinatory intervention into certain dominant sociolects and communicative forms of the broadly current moment. Its language is derivative, in its hectoring, enthymemic, and clickbait-ish dimensions, but also inventive to the extent that its locutions mimic at times those of the (punk, hardcore) band name, song lyric, or album title (at least in my imaginings and process). Key influences on this poem include Bruce Andrews, Marie Annharte Baker, and Dorothy Trujillo Lusk—but also William Carlos Williams, in a weird way that I can’t quite figure out. “The pure products of America / go crazy” and all.
In part, I think that the poem is a response to a hegemonic media and political discourse whose conditions of possibility find their limit in the binary avatars of Trump-Harris or Trudeau-Poilievre. It’s a poem that enacts a displeasure with a sociopolitical menu of which there are only two items: white supremacist revanchism or official multiculturalist capitalism. I know that many other options in fact subsist. But it’s a structure of feeling. It’s likely also a result of how I put the poem together: with phrases and discursive scraps that I’d find out in the world (as they say) and that I’d bring back home with me, collecting them in a text document on my laptop for several weeks before digging into it all as a type of primary inscription and source (but in fact already highly mediated, of course).
Q: How does this piece compare to some of the other work you’ve been doing lately?
A: It differs a lot from the other writing that I’ve been working on of late. Over the past two years, I’ve really stopped thinking about the poem as a terminal form and moved toward conceiving it as part of a series or project (typically smaller than the size of a book). To varying degrees, I conceptualize each project as distinct (at least while I’m in the process of putting it together). I also tend to work on multiple projects and series simultaneously. It’s to keep myself from bogging down too long in any one textual environment, I suppose. I’m working on two quite incompatible text sequences at the moment, for example. The first is a recapitulation in syntagms of Stan Douglas’ famous photomontage
Every Building on 100 West Hastings. It uses exclusively found language (which was easy to find but much harder to document and translate across media). The second is a return of sorts to what I understand as “teenage” poetry—but without the obtrusive subjectivity. What it aims for is a type of affective expressivity and relation to lyric but in a more strenuous formal environment. On the page, the two projects read like the work of separate writers, at least to me. If others experience it differently, it’s fine. In fact, perhaps it’s part of a larger goal.
Q: What has prompted this shift, do you think?
A: I think that part of it has to do with the fact that I finally got around to reading Jack Spicer’s
Collected Books in its entirety. His particular version of an open poetics in which poems are relational rather than autotelic—I find this quite compelling. Unsurprisingly, it also has to do with the fact that I live in Vancouver, a city in which serial, procedural, and (re)articulatory approaches to poetic text have long histories.
Part of what I find (relatively) unappealing about the poem as standalone are the subsequent compositional (and interpretive) structures that it presupposes. Each poem with its own page and identity (in the form of a title). Discrete poems following one after another as the sequence that forms the book.
The forms that interest me at the moment are the variable cluster, block, and sprawl (among others). I like works that stray from the vertical and horizontal ordering principles according to which the book title holds the book sections, which hold the poem titles, which hold the poems proper. I like organization but not in subservience-domination.
Off the top of my head, I’m thinking of
Pause Button by Kevin Davies,
Same Diff by Donato Mancini,
Wayside Sang by Cecily Nicholson, and
Ogress Oblige by Dorothy Trujillo Lusk (among many others). I’m thinking of pages that look like poems in terms of format but lack proper designation or ascription and such. As a reader, I experience it as semiotically enabling to have some disequilibrium and (mis)order in the table of contents. Poetry as project seems more amenable to such outcomes.
Q: Is it possible for a poem to stand alone? To paraphrase Michael Ondaatje’s paraphrase of Jack Spicer in his introduction to
The Long Poem Anthology: The poems can no better live on their own than can we. What are your thoughts on the idea that a poem can exist purely on its own?
A: In the most basic sense, I believe that nothing exists purely on its own. For poems it is thus no different, I imagine.
The question is interesting, of course, primarily for what underlies it. Are we talking about the autonomy of the work of art? Is it an issue of mereology—the relation of the part to the whole? What is the ontology specific to aesthetic structure? What is the social life and economy of literature or writing? To what extent is the notion of the standalone poem an allegory of sorts for the self-sufficient individual or citizen?
Spicer’s claim is no doubt operating in a negative relation to the New Criticism of his time. It also finds its concomitant in his deep investment in poetic community (as a place of mutual support and reciprocity but also antagonism and dissensus).
The idea of the interpretive unity of the poem places particular pressures on the writer and the reader. At times, these pressures are productive and enabling, but this is mostly not the case as things currently stand, in my estimation.
Q: Are there any models for the kinds of work you’ve been attempting? Have you any particular writers or specific works in the back of your head as you write?
A: I don’t really think of models or influence directly. I read a lot of poetry because I’m really into it, and this process and experience of reading is part of what compels my own writing. I like to consider influence as a range of syntactic affordances and less as something that pertains to style, idiom, or signification. But it’s there, no doubt.
If anything, specific works by particular writers are less frequently in the back of my head than right in front of me on the page or computer screen. At least, this is the case when I deliberately set up formal, palimpsestic relations between what I’m working on and another writer or text. As an extreme example, I have a poem called “Flair Despair” in my chapbook
Mean Means, and this poem is a “cover version” of Dorothy Trujillo Lusk’s poem “Anti Tumblehome,” from her book
Oral Tragedy. I’ve done this sort of thing quite a few times (though not at all to the same degree) with poems by historical, canonical writers (Shakespeare, Hopkins, Larkin), as well as other Vancouver poets like Daphne Marlatt, Michael Turner, Meredith Quartermain, and George Stanley. I had the good fortune to publish a bunch of these in an issue of
West Coast Line many several years ago.
Q: I’m intrigued by your current interview project, working through interviews with Kevin Davies, Dennis Denisoff, and Louis Cabri. How did this project begin, and how do these interviews, potentially, exist in conversation with or alongside your writing?
A: Various impulses motivate these interviews, which are in fact part of a larger project (or at least this is the plan). I’m a big fan of these poets, but there’s not a whole lot of info about them or their writing online or elsewhere. Part of what I want to do, then, is to fill in some of these gaps. Personally, I want to learn more about Kevin, Louis, and Dennis, how they understand their poetics, what brought them to poetry, some literary anecdotes and gossip, their histories and those of the scenes of which they were (are) a part, the usual things.
At the same time, I’m also thinking about the interview project as at least partly archival. There are some amazing unpublished, roughly edited, and incomplete interviews with various Kootenay School of Writing members and affiliates available online on the KSW website, at kswnet.org. As a researcher, writer, and fan, I’m enormously glad that these accounts exist, whatever their “deficiencies” from a conventional publishing perspective. I find them crucial for filling in parts of what is soon to be a predominantly historical record of “avant-garde” writing community in Vancouver from the 1980s to the mid-2010s. In this regard, the interviews aim to add to this body of knowledge, whether we (the poets and I) end up publishing them online, as part of a book, or whether they end up as archival material somewhere for future researchers (of whatever sort).
How does this affect my writing? In the standard sense it doesn’t. But in another it does. It affects more my role as a poet, as someone who is in community (of various sorts) with other writers, who has a strong interest in helping and promoting poetry to happen, to have it circulate in various ways. In this sense, I see the interviews as more or less co-extensive with the labour of writing poetry itself. The same is true of the readings that I’ve been organizing as of late.
Q: Finally, who do you read to reenergize your own work? What particular works can’t you help but return to?
A: So many! It’s too easy to let this question spiral out of control. Ok. Let me choose only five, discounting anyone whom I’ve discussed or mentioned so far.
Books-poets that I continue to get a lot of mileage out of include the following: Marie Annharte Baker (all but especially
Exercises in Lip Pointing and
Indigena Awry), Amiri Baraka the New American poetry and Black Nationalist phases), Paul Celan (the later work, especially in the Pierre Joris translations), Erin Moure (her first five books), and Harryette Mullen (the trio of publications collected in their entirety in
Recyclopedia).
An impossible question. But these look about right in terms of where I am right now.
