KATIE
HIBNER Reviews
SANS by G.L. Ford
(Ugly Duckling Presse, 2017)
In the spirit of its
name, I’ll begin by sculpting the form of G.L. Ford’s first full-length
collection, Sans, with a subtractive
process, cataloging what it lacks. Most overtly, there are neither end-stopped
lines, nor titles above individual poems.
The table of contents hides at the end of
this slim, inconspicuous white volume; therefore, a reader seeking the title of
a piece must flip to the end to match it to its corresponding page number. It’s
wholly possible that a reader may breeze through the whole collection believing
it to contain only one untitled poem written as a series of fragments. Only
short bars at the end of each piece, as well as labels at the bottoms of poems
in a sequence titled “Enkidu’s Lament,” indicate separation.
Ford enacts “sans” conceptually by
illustrating a condition in which abstract ideas cannot correspond to physical
representation and vice-versa; the signifier lacks the signified. Since
memories arise from sensations (especially smells, since the olfactory bulb has
direct connections to the amygdala and hippocampus), Ford centers on the
difficulty of recollection in such a state. “Enkidu’s Lament (6)” epitomizes
the strain:
“the glass…cast upon
me and my poor mortal
eyes the image that
I want to say still
haunts me, but what
I am left with is no
memory of sight but of
the act and moment
of seeing…” (44)
Enkidu bemoans retaining only the temporal
and experiential elements of witnessing the glass, rather than recalling the visual
impression of the glass itself. For him, perceptions of notions such as time
cannot coexist with perceptions of senses such as sight.
Ford’s fascination with perception evokes both
verse and prose by John Ashbery. Ford explicitly discusses sensory input, and
Ashbery’s poetry (particularly The Tennis
Court Oath) mimics a jerky stream of consciousness. Also, in a 1969 review
of Elizabeth Bishop’s Complete Poems, Ashbery
declares that he and Bishop delight in how, as humans, “we confusedly feel
ourselves to be part thing and part thought.”
Ford’s nameless primary speaker derives not
joy, but panic from a supposed violent dichotomy between abstractions and
objects. They depict a “broken polynomial” and “letters stripped of sound.”
They dramatize ideas and matter as “pull(ing) taut against each other…defining
/ the boundaries of my every loss…” The speaker portrays the friction between
the poles as so intense, it shapes their own suffering.
This rubbing metaphor reminds me of
Nietzsche’s “On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense.” The fact that the
speaker’s truths are “coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only
as metal, no longer as coins” terrifies them. Unlike Nietzsche’s theory, which
attributes the formation of these truths to a civilization’s gradual, “long use”
of metaphors, the petrifying truths of Ford’s speaker result from a singular
trauma which they never explicate.
Perhaps it was a defeat in heroic combat. The character of Enkidu originates as the man-beast from The Epic of Gilgamesh. The goddess Aruru
creates the feral Enkidu to counter Gilgamesh’s arrogance, and the primary
speaker of Sans senses that the world
condemns their “bestial sympathies”— or, conversely, judges them “not / bestial
enough.” The speaker also conflates savagery with kindness by portraying their
reluctant altruism as “brute and / natural compassion.” The contrast of
Enkidu’s wildness and benevolence to the primary speaker’s sophistication and
egocentrism corresponds to the epic’s original Enkidu-Gilgamesh binary.
The primary speaker
particularly evokes Gilgamesh’s royal privilege in the piece “Sanitation,” in
which they recall when they and their fellow nobles employed their inferiors to
sort through the wreckage of their prerogatives:
“We hired experts…
to help us reclaim what
might
have been left of our
earthly patrimony…our
usual pastimes of gossip
and the mutilation of the flesh…we
expected that those we had charged
with arranging our
deliverance would do so
after a reasonable time
and for a reasonable sum…” (16)
The primary speaker recollects when they
and their companions arrogantly contracted out their redemption to skilled
laborers, confident that they could buy salvation despite their abuses of
power. By the collection’s juncture, however, the traumatic split between
concreteness and abstraction has humbled and even crippled the speaker, leaving
them without “memory of sensation / itself, only a cobbling /of words.” The
condition also represses Enkidu, who characterizes “each thought” as “an act of
supplication.”
Paradoxically, the speakers cannot
associate physicality with notions, but they envision their memories as
spatial. Enkidu portrays the forgetting process as determinedly “leaving room /
for fewer and fewer moments.” The primary speaker transitions from pompous heir
to timid sentry. In “Industry,” they and their companions return to a defunct
workshop, and their recollection of its former purpose dwindles into “the small
and shrinking / circle we’d calculated / we could hope to defend.” The speaker
conceptualizes their remembrances of the abandoned studio as a territory to
protect. Complicating their guardianship, their memories often self-destruct,
“history / taking care of / effacing itself.” Although they claim an inability
to link the immaterial with the material, Enkidu and the primary speaker
incongruously depict intangible memories as tangibly erased.
Along with their
patrols, the primary speaker aims to preserve their recollections by sharing
them vocally. Although historians signify The
Epic of Gilgamesh as the earliest extant work of written literature, the
primary speaker of Sans is more
preoccupied with oral tradition. They remark on their “throat / and jaw seizing
up” when they attempt “to shape the sounds…spoken before.” Handicapped, the
speaker cannot transmit speech of the past to present listeners, cannot secure
its remembrance in the future. In “Bisprecan,” they elaborate their oral
obsession:
“I spent a week
cataloging mouths, all
the concatenations
of lips and teeth and
tongue that set
themselves
before me…
I’d emerged from
naked animal silence
into taking breath not
for the sake of breath
or blood but
to fill the hollow
impetus of words…” (37)
Once the primary
speaker indexes their impressions of the mouths that once confronted them, the
listlessness they perceive in language compels them to speak. Fixating on
speech organs prompts them to inject life back into communication. Rather than
a “hollow / impetus,” the speaker feels a fierce drive to reanimate spoken
discourse with their memories.
Ford’s omnipresent
enjambment mimics speech and evokes his primary speaker’s fascination on it. He
often breaks lines on the words directly following caesuras, as Eliot does in
the first six lines of “The Waste Land.” Eliot ends lines with gerunds to
invigorate the reader, provoking them to proceed; whereas Ford often finishes
them with wan prepositions such as “of” and “a.” Granted, Frank O’Hara also
commits this writerly sin in “To the Harbormaster,” but the surprising
juxtapositions in each line that result compensate for it. Lines from Sans such as “of them from recall, left,
” “pretended to, when,” and “little but themselves, as” do not stimulate enough
to stand alone.
When Ford couples such
choppy enjambment with feverish repetition, his speakers stutter, frantically
scrambling for “le mot juste.” Enkidu
especially stammers, recalling smiles “bright as ice or ice / that winter on
winter / cracks,” and sputtering about distance measured in “breaths between /
regrets, between / contrary certitudes…” Enkidu repeats his phrases to correct
them; the fitful enjambment mimics the self-doubt he feels after the calamitous
rupture between the palpable and the impalpable.
The repetitions also
function as reminders. The speakers’ inability to associate the physical with
the abstract distorts their self-perceptions: they question their own
corporeality. References to breath and heartbeat recur frequently, as if the
speakers are consciously noting their own bodily functions. Enkidu uncovers
“the buried pulse / in old dark courses” by utilizing his “breath / the gauge.”
In “The Acquisition of Virtue,” the primary speaker contemplates the
circulation of blood:
“…I thought, chilled
and cramped and weary,
what’s
more ageless, more
ephemeral than the blood
we seek to possess, that runs
through and between us
hot and quick and forever
just about to stop” (39)
The primary speaker unravels a paradoxical meditation
on the vascular system, illustrating it as simultaneously “ageless” and
“ephemeral,” both “forever” and “just about to stop.” These contradictions
indicate the depth of their fixation on the pulse, revealing how tightly they
cling to hallmarks of their physical existence.
Perhaps the primary speaker cherishes the
vascular system because it is a closed circuit, containing the bloodstream and
preventing loss. Since memory diminishes with the passage of time, both
speakers link flux with depletion. Enkidu reflects that in conjunction with his
forgetting process, “water flowed beneath the ice / and ice beneath the water.”
In the final, titular piece, the primary speaker unveils a conceit that
encapsulates their equation of flow with loss:
“There is only time, a sighing
of the frame, a constant
reckoning with the buttresses
and pinions of memory
that hold off the collapse
of experience into one
great wash…” (58)
The currents of time crash against the
fasteners of memory, threatening to dilute distinct perceptions into a general
rinse. Ford caps off his collection with the ironic assertion that a deluge
combining everything causes the ultimate nothingness, the supreme condition of
“sans.”
I’m very curious to
know what— or perhaps, more aptly, who— drove Ford to examine such devastation,
particularly regarding memory. When I ruminate on other contemporary poets
concerned with recollection, Don Mee Choi and Ocean Vuong come to the fore.
Both stylistically-dissimilar writers convey memory through a personal lens.
Like Ford’s, the speakers of their poems doggedly preserve reminiscences, especially
their family members’. In an essay for The
Volta blog, Choi writes that her parents’ “memory formed the lining of the
womb in which (she) was conceived.” In the poem “Ancestor Worship,” Ford’s
primary speaker also implies a desire to conserve their family members’
impressions, despite “the creeping resignation that / to hold precious is not /
to redeem.” That’s as personal as they get.
My craving for more
intimate context for Sans is not a
criticism: in fact, the lack of familial or other details fits the book’s
conceptualism and its speakers’ struggles to retain their recollections. I
can’t help but wonder, however, what inspired Ford to write about memory loss on
the premise that Enkidu fears his own oblivion. Since the literary canon
immortalizes the character, that framework packs quite a punch.
*****
Katie Hibner’s poetry
has been published by Bone Bouquet, inter|rupture, Up the Staircase
Quarterly, Vinyl, and Yalobusha Review. She has read for Bennington
Review, Salamander, and Sixth Finch. Katie dedicates all her
poetry to the memory of her mother and best friend, Laurie.