I got to meet Sasha where I was working as staff and she was faculty. She gave a wonderfully engaging presentation about language, concluding with readings from her work. I didn’t get to interact with her very much. I was intimidated and found myself reading her reactions to the things I had to say about poetry derisively (which she would be totally entitled to do, considering my lack of knowledge) so I found myself making excuses. She came off as so fiercely intelligent and also incredibly staunch in her opinions.
After reading this collection, I have to say I think I was right to read her demeanor that way. Many people in the reviews I’ve read have used the word evocative, but in very different ways. I think this is because her text is constructed (literally; line breaks and stanza construction is visibly careful and intentional) so finely, her word choice so large and specific, and her way of conjuring meaning with syntax... it’s a little boggling. The text sits staunchly on the page and doesn’t give itself away. It also doesn’t reach out for you and beacon you in like other writers who have earned that “evocative” adjective. Her work means, it means specifically, and it does not beg to be interpreted, but rather to be read and understood. I may be way off here, but that’s the feeling I got. A repeat reading is in order.
I appreciated the notes at the end. Just another sort of virtuosic flourish where she shows her polygoltal, bibliophilic wiles. The way her work incorporates other art like little shards of mirror and glass to reflect and refract meaning is lovely, if obtuse to those who haven’t read Archimedes to Stein or lived from the Philippines to south Texas.
I liked this. I don’t know exactly what my reaction would have been had I not met and liked Sasha, or seen her fiery and inspiring presentation. But perhaps that’s a better way to experience writing anyway.