5 Questions Series

INSTALLMENT #3

Chris Tonelli is the author of the chapbook Wide Tree, and curator of The So and So Reading Series in the Boston area. His work has appeared extensively in journals and anthologies both online and in print.
Chris is a reader for Ploughshares, and recently conducted an interview with Justin Marks on the Ploughshares Blog.

Here are Chris's answers to the 5 Questions:


1. Can creativity be taught?


Yeah. I mean, if we look at creativity as the collective ways we can and/or choose to express ourselves, it seems we can certainly learn new ways to do that. Primarily by reading, but also by participating in poetic communities...discussing poetics, writing about poetics, etc. By listening and responding to as wide a variety of poetics as possible, we can pick and choose from and/or react against what we come across.


2. Do you write the majority of your poems in one sitting?


No. So far I have recognized myself as having two basic modes when it comes to process--the mode in which I work on a poem (even a small one) for months on end and the mode where I bang out a poem in like five minutes. And while I often like the five-minute variety better then the months-on-end variety, I would say in general the poems that last for me take a while.


3. Do you read more than you write?


Yes. I'm not a prolific writer, but I am constantly reading...poetry (books, journals, friends poems, my poems, etc.), The New York Times Magazine, blogs, essays, novels, etc. Almost all my writing stems from reading. I think reading is essential to understanding poetic heritage and context and therefore is essential to writing. Ever see The Big Lebowski? When Walter says, "So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...". That's how I feel poets who don't read enough come off. Like Donny. If you haven't seen it, nevermind.


4. Is it possible to live off of being a poet anymore?


No. I think poets who don't have a job per se are independently wealthy. Even the most famous living poets teach, give readings and lectures, hold workshops, judge contests, etc. But maybe that's what you mean when you say "poet"...someone who does all of these things. But just writing poems...it doesn't seem like it. Which is good and bad.


5. Is today's poetry lackluster compared with "classic" poetry? (whatever "classic" poetry means to you is fine)


No. I mean, it's like comparing Mozart to the Beatles. Both are great and of their time. It brings up the question of what is art's function. Mozart's music did what art should do when he was alive, as did the Beatles. Both are still doing it, but carry with it the context in which it was written. A band couldn't put out "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" today and have it be relevant, although that song is still relevant. I think there are a ton of terrific contemporary poets whose work is doing what art should do, just as Shakespeare's did. Unfortunately, many of these poets aren't always on major presses or on a lot of syllabi, etc. I don't think enough teachers encourage students to seek out the poets I am thinking of. That is one difference between "Classic" poetry and contemporary poetry: the best work happening now isn't necessarily what is most popular. Same with music. Mozart and The Beatles were wildly popular. I wouldn't say there are that many great poets right now who are wildly popular. Of course, tons of great "Classic" work wasn't popular when it was written, so I'm not sure that last part was worth reading.


Look forward to upcoming responses from Tim Botta, Tom Lisk, and Mark Smith-Soto...