“Minotaur Out of Gods and Chocolate” – Scratchboard by Deb Ewing
Entangled Poets
– A Collaborative Interview Via eMail & Twitter –
Snow in May? Cold unrelenting. Three months had blurred since the start of the Pandemic. With so many countries still locked down, Twitter both chirped relief and burned with anger. Though the platform is considered borderless, with the world so inverted and in-person meetings deemed reckless, it was as if another Berlin Wall had been erected. We could tweet all day, barred by algorithms and denied connections. For months this wall had stretched a blank canvas for our sore and pent up speech to gather, bloom or canker. Likes spread love, retweets stand favors, but it’s never honest, real or remotely committed, until you’ve made the extra effort to connect in person.
Admiring works by Toronto-based poet, Lisa Alletson (@Lotustongue), I was inspired to send her a direct message. For several weeks thereafter, we talked craft, comparing poems and prose we’d posted. When I told Lisa about Monologging, and our collaborative focus, she invited my agent, Natalie Kimber and I to join in one of the calls she regularly holds with her closest twitter comrades. Mel (@ScienceGeekMel) is a neuroscientist, poet and musician based in Los Angeles. Debora Ewing (@DebsValidation) is a poet and artist hailing from Virginia. Shannon (@impeccablechaos) likewise, is a Canadian poet and artist, and “Dr. Blue” (@AspienBlue) is an american geologist and poet now living in Australia. Here was a thriving “local-global” collaborative network forged in the spirit of Monologging. Despite vast distances, they’d developed close friendships, found means to offer devoted support and to celebrate each participant’s artistic ventures. Now they were beginning to influence each other’s work directly.
The following questions, answers and dialogue that we’ve transcribed below is a testament to each individual’s creativity and an exploration of several collaborative works that their interactions over Twitter and Zoom have fostered.
– Jeffrey F. Barken, November 15th, 2020 –
*Click “Read” and “Close” to reveal and hide each participant’s responses:
@JeffreyF.Barken: How did your group coalesce? And for how long have you all been collaborating?
@AspienBlue’s reply: ”Read”
We are an organically coalesced community of practice, composed of five spores blown together on the digital winds of twitter. Our shared sense of irreverent humour, honest discourse, and mutual support and trust bound us tightly from the loose network that initially sprouted in early 2019 with a larger group of poet/writer/science enthusiasts.
”Close”
@Lotustongue‘s reply: ”Read”
I had recently joined Twitter and around July, someone recommended I follow Blue. I was so impressed by her writing and never thought she’d follow me back one day. Somehow I stumbled into a long twitter chat about Princess Bride and boldly jumped in with a quote. Mel, who I saw as a queen of a group of science writers, had a lot of prompts/chats/questions going on with the community, and she responded to something I said later with this tweet. I remember being amazed that someone like her was so welcoming to new writers. Deb replied to one of my poems with a way better poem, and I was smitten. Shannon and I drifted in to each other somewhere. I fell in love with her art and writing at the same time.
”Close”
@impeccablechaos’ reply: ”Read”
I had a pre existing twitter and I wanted to use it to connect with people. We didn’t have anything in mind, we just kind of came together and we were there for each other, no questions.
”Close”
@JeffreyF.Barken: What were each of you initially seeking from other creatives on twitter? Was your early communication just an experiment or did you immediately have a vision for working together to build an artistic community?
@AspienBlue’s reply: ”Read”
I, personally, was feeling my way through writing ventures and into the publishing world with the Twitter writing community as my only real guide. I had no idea what I was doing other than fumbling about in the dark seeking the connection I lacked in real life.
”Close”
@ScienceGeekMel’s reply: ”Read”
I don’t think we originally had any goals. We started chatting and then, organically, began running poems by each other, etc. This led to natural, small collabs. So, I suppose, we were just seeking solidarity, support, and community from one another.
”Close”
@DebsValidation’s reply: ”Read”
I had no clue. I was coming out of a conglomerate of awkward relationships and wasn’t sure what I wanted to do with Twitter other than “build my platform.” I didn’t even really know what a platform was. Somewhere I fell onto Lisa’s poetry, and was moved to respond with a poem of my own. And then there was some convoluted conversation about chess. It was bottom-up evolution.
”Close”
@impeccablechaos’ reply: ”Read”
It’s hard when we can’t sit around a table and talk, face to face.
”Close”
@JeffreyF.Barken: Can we do a round? What’s something that inspires each of you about another member of the group’s work?
@AspienBlue’s reply: ”Read”
I’m inspired by each of these women daily. They each have a unique voice and lens, which have broadened both my creative repertoire and my world view. They have taught me how to be strong in my fragility and to harness my outrage. I love how they are always striving to play above what they know and learn from failure.
”Close”
@ScienceGeekMel’s ”Read”
Shan is the next great artist of our time. She integrates words with a type of art I’ve never seen. It breaks my heart a little every time she shares a new piece. Deb marries ordinary words/objects with the most profound ideas in her poetry. Her poems make you work- it’s not obvious on the surface but it guts you when the meaning hits. She also creates art that is different, funky, and insanely awesome. Blue has the rare ability to use rhyme and meter in her poetry (often a pet peeve of mine because it can sometimes cheapen poems) and a talent for describing indescribable pain. She writes of struggle and love equally beautifully. In the world of poetry, Lisa is somehow both water and fire. Her words flow in a way that is always surprising, sticking the reader with one or more extremely vivid images (depending on the length of the piece) that you just can’t get out of your head. I remember snippets from poems I read one time months ago. All members of the group have also challenged my understanding and feelings about neurodiversity in amazing ways.
”Close”
@Lotustongue‘s reply: ”Read”
Blue weaves her rich, descriptive language into her natural rhythm to write emotional, sometimes heartbreaking stories and poems. Her work makes me reflect on my own life experiences. She and I have a lot of experiences in common and she always gets me. Shannon’s art and poetry are purely her own. I’ve never seen such original art. I can summon the images to mind so clearly. Her drawing of the five of us as a birthday gift to me takes pride of place in my writing room. Deb’s work stays in your head forever. I still think back on some of her older stories when I’m trying to write. Her technical ability is outstanding and I learn form her whenever I read her. Her art is a clear reminder me that there is such a thing as natural talent that can’t be taught. Mel’s writing is directly linked to her empathetic nature. She inhabits her characters like no-one I’ve seen, and that makes the reader feel like she understands them. Her prose and poetry take you right into your own emotional reactions. Brilliant.
”Close”
@JeffreyF.Barken: Likewise where do see your peers challenging themselves the most to grow creatively?
@ScienceGeekMel’s reply: ”Read”
Lisa is constantly studying poetry in an almost academic way. She’ll come to us talking about pairing common word sounds together, or pushing us to do certain things to further ourselves as poets. Deb has a more causal approach (it’ll tell you when it’s done, etc) but also challenges me to rethink everything I’ve ever understood (for ex., “the negative space is just as important if not more so than the rest”). Shan reminds us to be gentle with ourselves and fierce with our art (and will stand up for anyone who has fallen victim to an unkind word). Blue asks for feedback perhaps the most often. She writes constantly and is always looking to better understand and assess her own work. She challenges me in that her vocabulary is approximately 42 times as big as mine.
”Close”
@JeffreyF.Barken: Given that your network spans vast distances, what are some of the primary perks and possible frustrations / limitations you’ve each encountered on the platforms you’ve utilized to collaborate?
@ScienceGeekMel’s reply: ”Read”
The time zones can be tough, especially for Blue, who is often on different parts of the sleep/wake cycle than others. But we make do.
”Close”
Watercolour & ink pen by Shannon, words by Blue
@JeffreyF.Barken: Is 5 the perfect number of participants? Or could you see yourselves inviting others into your group or building some kind of online platform that enables broader groups to flourish?
@AspienBlue’s reply: ”Read”
We are a very well balanced group. I don’t know that it has anything to do with a perfect number, but our strengths, knowledge, and passions are complementary. Our range of age, life and professional experiences, interests, and desires are also beautifully interleaved, with just enough overlap to engender deep trust and sufficient individuality to offer perspective.
”Close”
@Lotustongue‘s reply: ”Read”
It’s not the number. It’s our deep trust and faith in each other as individuals that make this group special. There is nothing that could add to our group. We have dozens of laugh tracks we should play for you:) No-one gets me out of a funk like these goddesses in my life
. ”Close”
@ScienceGeekMel’s reply: ”Read”
We all collaborate with others but our specific group is probably never going to have an addition. It wouldn’t be the same. I don’t think it’s necessarily because 5 is magic, but because we just happen to work as we are.
”Close”
@DebsValidation’s reply: ”Read”
I think the number is contingent on quality – our five happen to work well together. I think it would complicate things to add more people; it’s usually 2 or 3 of us who are actually contributing material to one project or another, even if we’re all talking it through.
”Close”
@impeccablechaos’ reply: ”Read”
I don’t think it has to do with numbers. We are just a group of women who have respect and love for each other. We clicked, that’s it! And no, we’re not accepting any new members 😉
”Close”
@JeffreyF.Barken: Collaborating can result in some difficult emotions as one must routinely cede control of a project to allow their partner in creation space to contribute on an equal footing. There’s also direct pressure to always do your best work, and to provide honest feedback when you think your partner can do better. Can you provide a window into your process(es)? Have there been some intense dialogues among the group critiquing each other’s work, and pushing collaborative projects further?
@AspienBlue’s reply: ”Read”
I’d say we’re all very hard on ourselves, so we try to provide the gentleness to one another we don’t get internally. That said, Deb and I are very blunt and direct in our critiques, which can pierce artistic skin, especially when applied to work very close to someone’s heart. We’re all human and dealing with our own lives, so we work very hard to be accepting of everyone’s time/energy/emotional investment limitations and work through conflict and misunderstandings when they arise.
”Close”
@ScienceGeekMel’s reply: ”Read”
Collaborations usually arise casually and without official asks. Usually we stick a poem in the chat and ask for feedback, especially if something just isn’t working right. For awhile, I was making Deb email me poetry every day, partly because I liked it, partly because I wanted her to make writing a routine. I think this is how she sent the lyrics to Big Love (more on that later). Sometimes the feedback hurts. We’ve had this happen. But we’re pretty adult about it and we say,
hey, that bothered me and we move past it. It’s impossible to avoid upset feelings because it’s poetry/music/prose/art and it’s composed of the same cells as we are. If we didn’t feel that close to it, we wouldn’t be doing it right.
”Close”
@DebsValidation’s reply: ”Read”
“Intense dialogue” is a difficult thing to pin down in writing. Usually we are upfront about our emotions, sometimes not immediately. We do regularly remind ourselves and each other that we are a safe space for brutal honesty. I think we take advantage of that.
”Close”
@JeffreyF.Barken: In your final analysis, (emotionally speaking), what distinguishes a collaborative project from something you’ve produced independently? Which creative process typically renders the most fulfilling feedback?
@ScienceGeekMel’s reply: ”Read”
I think anything I’ve done has always been made better when it has been touched by another member of the group. We never grow as individuals by repeating the same thing over and over. We grow when someone else looks at what we’ve made and says “this part doesn’t work, make it better,” or “would you consider changing x to y?” I have grown immensely as a result of this group. The best feedback (for me) has come when I explicitly ask for exactly what I need (
guys, is the third line weird? or does the ending suck? etc).
”Close”
@DebsValidation’s reply: ”Read”
The emotional investment and reward is amplified with a successful collaborative effort. I love the things we blend in a special way. Because I’m so dedicated to the process, I often don’t feel like I’m responsible for what I create. When I collaborate, I’m able to fixate more and be more proud of the parts I can assign to my partners than what might be assigned to me.
”Close”
@JeffreyFBarken: Are collaborations inherently more culturally relevant than independent projects because they actively seek to bridge perspectives?
@ScienceGeekMel’s reply: ”Read”
I sort of touched on this above, but yes. Everyone has their own perspective and sharing these points of view naturally lead to better, more rounded out work.
”Close”
@DebsValidation’s reply: ”Read”
I don’t consider cultural relevance at the time I’m creating. I don’t even really come at a collaboration with collaborating in the front of my mind. I know it’s something I love, but I come at the conversation first. There always has to be a conversation, and if that works, the collab evolves bottom-up (or sideways.) To plan cultural significance would be top-down evolution, and I feel like there’s a dishonest element there. Dishonest is probably not the right word because it implies intention to deceive. Definitely that comes into question. But people say all the time: “we should work together on something.” I don’t know how well that works intentionally. I think the magic of our group is the intention to love and be loved. That’s it.
”Close”
“Built With Brittle Styx” – Scratchboard by Deb Ewing
@JeffreyFBarken: Let’s take a closer look at some of the projects you’ve done together: Deb & Mel, you’ve explained to me how Deb’s scratchboard work, “Built with Brittle Styx” absorbed a response poem by Mel in which she had penned a poem utilizing your prompt words: “bulbous, sanguine, and Corpus Callosum,” The words and letters of Mel’s poem repeat and reverberate throughout the image until they overlap and are no longer clearly legible. What meaning do you both draw from Deb’s process as she worked and molded the poem into the picture? What themes, concepts, techniques etc. surfaced in your musings and conversations as you created this?
@ScienceGeekMel’s reply: ”Read”
I’ll let Deb tackle this one. All I did was write the poem and then she made the awesome art thing. I do best when I’m given prompts and she gave me those awesome words, so that was fun.
”Close”
@DebsValidation’s reply: ”Read”
I was working in a restaurant as the act – they had artists working 4-hour shifts every day, in the dining area where people could ask questions. It was a unique experience and I may try to do something similar again. We were communicating via Twitter while I worked; I’d check messages when I gave my hand a break. Lisa wanted to know exactly how it works, so I made her a small video. I wrote “Lisa asked a question” and then continued to write words over and over until you couldn’t read them any longer. She said it was a little painful to watch her name disappear.
”Close”
@JeffreyF.Barken: Likewise, Lisa and Deb: Can you describe the process you underwent blending poems and image in “Minotaur”? What were the highlights and challenges inherent in the project?
@Lotustongue‘s reply: ”Read”
I wrote a poem and Deb scratched her favourite line into her art (we are out we are out we are out). I was amazed and honoured. I felt like a part of her art and by extension, of her. I’ve never been drawn into something in that way before. I will never forget the feeling and it created a bond between us that will last a lifetime.
”Close”
@JeffreyF.Barken: How does the scratchboard medium enhance / extend the content of the poems?
@DebsValidation’s reply: ”Read”
I suspect the added value of using words is esoteric – is that the word I mean? Somewhere between esoteric and superfluous. It’s like an inside joke; you feel connected to others who also know about it, once you know.
”Close”
@DebsValidation’s reply: ”Read”
The average amount of time to finish each scratchboard piece is 7 hours. Some were 6; some were 8.
”Close”
@JeffreyFBarken: Mel, you wrote to me in August to share your amazing song “Big Love” (featured above) and mentioned that it was a “total colab” with Deb. There’s so much involved with pairing music to words. What was your original inspiration? How did you work together on the lyrics, melody, etc.? How did you record, produce etc? & how do you feel it was received as you released the music?
@ScienceGeekMel’s reply: ”Read”
Deb wrote the words. I loved them and they resonated with me. We both feel that we love awkwardly and usually too much. It’s a burden, this big love. So I felt strongly about the words and asked if I could write the music. She agreed and then I procrastinated because life. Then I started humming a tune and sat with my acoustic and put chords behind it. She liked the chords so I recorded and produced the rest of the instrumentation, etc, with GarageBand and a mic. I’m still learning the technology but it’s been fun to play with. People seemed to like it, I think. I was proud of it because it represents a few firsts for me: first collab (I always write my own lyrics), one of the first full songs with production I’ve made from scratch.
”Close”
@DebsValidation’s reply: ”Read”
the way it went down, as I remember, was this: mel read my poem Big Love and responded: dude, I love this so hard. May I put music to it? And I responded something like FUCK YES PLEASE. She asked if I had an idea how I wanted the music to go; I did, but I didn’t want to tell her because I wanted to see what she came up with. And then we sat back and waited for the music to manifest itself with her.
”Close”
@ScienceGeekMel’s reply: ”Read”
Deb says bridge but I just really love the chorus. It is what came to me first and it’s so catchy, at least to me. I’ll catch myself singing to it and honestly, the line like a feather with no wing, like a wing without a dove is just the best lyric ever. I am proud of the intro riff because it was hard for me to play (not the best guitarist here).
”Close”
@DebsValidation’s reply: ”Read”
THE FUCKING BRIDGE. I expect Mel to answer the same. Also, I love how she changed the tense of the last round of Chorus to present. She’s brilliant. I told you I hate her.
”Close”
@JeffreyF.Barken: Toni Morrison famously said: “Art is knowing when to stop.” Obviously this marker of quality can be a moving target when two or more people are collaborating. Do you find you’re all usually on the same page when it’s time to press print? Or are there some perfectionist hold outs among you? Who pushes the hardest? And how do you defuse tensions if debate grows heated?
@DebsValidation’s reply:
”Read”
I find collaboration to be the best way to put on brakes. I don’t necessarily believe myself, but if my partner thinks I should stop, or thinks I should keep going, I tend to believe them. When I give my opinion, it’s usually pretty blunt and I usually didn’t put a lot of diplomatic thought to it. And then I sometimes change my mind about what I said, but by then everyone else has solidified their opinion around what I blurted at them. Flexibility is important; being willing to be wrong is important. But when you know you’ve got a handle on the vision, you have to be willing to defend it. I trust the gang with all of that … One final (thought): I realize, though I don’t like to dwell on it, that the magical nature of this collective is finite. It will dissipate, maybe re-gel on occasion, or resettle into other forms. I truly hope it doesn’t happen any time soon, but I will welcome change as a natural part of our collective growth process. ”Close”
***
