• Recovering English Ghazal by Erin Thomas, Jane Reichhold (February 2003)
• Two Ghazal Poets, Josh Gage (January 2003)
• Volume I & II: Discovering English Ghazal & Uncovering English Ghazal, Jane Reichhold (October 2002)

---

Recovering English Ghazal by Erin A. Thomas
LYNX, A Journal for Linking Poets (February 2003): review by Jane Reichhold, Editor

Almost as a repudiation of Josh Gage's comments about the poetry of Erin A. Thomas, just the other day arrived the third in this series of booklets of the ghazals of Thomas - Recovering English Ghazal. I didn't know if the word in the title, "recovering" meant "getting better" or "covering over again" or even "rediscovering the ghazal" because all usages fit the accomplishments of his use of the ghazal form.

Erin Thomas had set for himself the task of writing 100 ghazals and this booklet contains the poems completing this goal. But what a difference in this set of works over his previous two books. Whether he meant to or not, Thomas did take Gage's advice - there was private correspondence between the two authors before Gage wrote his commentary. 

The leaps between the couplets in many of the poems of Recovering English Ghazal now demonstrate the agility the ghazal demands and there is a drastic increase in visual imagery that also adds to the impression of the vastness between linkages. Erin A. Thomas has accomplished excellent work here. The poems are sectioned into four divisions: Distress, Ponderment, Calling, and Transcendence with five to seven poems each. Here is a sample of the new work taken from the section titled "Calling" that is the 77th ghazal

DESTINY
Erin A. Thomas

A brook gently weeps on each stone, calling;
Soft wind consoles with a light moan calling.

Shaken autumn leaves float faint to the ground;
They filter against the wind's drone calling.

In the forest, an ancient falls crashing;
Hush follows behind its last, lone calling.

Seeds fall to soil, clouds nest in high canyons -
Each heeds the seat of its high throne calling.

Do you wonder where the falling stars land?
They go the way of their last known calling.

What is that sound so difficult to hear?
The silent sound of the heart's own calling.

Zahhar hears again your delicate voice -
Sweet on the breeze, a subtle tone calling.

Thomas has tells a marvelous story when he explains in the Introduction of Recovering English Ghazal how he got his pen-name.

And for those of you who feel you are just not writing enough, do think of following the example of Thomas and set for yourself a goal of writing a specific number of poems in a form or on one subject. May I remind you of Geraldine Clinton Little's exercise of writing ten tanka on ten different subjects (such a snow, moon, flowers, a hut, etc.) which turned into her well-known book, More Light, Larger Vision?

 

Return to Main Page or Top of This Page

---

Two Ghazal Poets
Literary Kicks (January 2003): review by Josh Gage

Originally, the title of this review was Review of Erin Thomas' "Uncovering English Ghazal" and "Discovering English Ghazal". But Gage changed the title to Two Ghazal Poets literally within hours of my thanking him for the publicity. A copy of this review has been published by AHA Poetry in their February, 2003 edition of LYNX, A Journal for Linking Poets.

Within recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in formal poetry, including “new” or “original” forms. One such form is, of course, the ghazal, which in reality can be traced back at least a thousand years, with roots going even deeper. However, the form is indeed new to English, especially in its formal sense. Many writers have claimed to written ghazals, but have in reality written creative free verse in couplets. It wasn’t until the late Agha Shahid Ali introduced the form, as an actual form, to English, did the ghazal begin receiving the respect it deserved from English audiences and poets.

One such poet is Erin A. Thomas. New to the poetry scene (though not to poetry), Thomas has recently self-published two chapbooks of ghazals, titled 'Uncovering English Ghazal' and 'Discovering English Ghazal'. Upon purchasing these books, I was elated to find that not only were there other poets interested in ghazals, but interested in trying to maintain the form in its utmost purity. While a majority of collections, Agha Shahid Ali’s 'Ravishing Disunities' being the prime example, have one or two examples by various poets, I know of no other complete collection of traditional ghazals by one individual. Ali’s 'Call Me Ishmael Tonight' will be out in March of 2003, but until then, we have Thomas.

Unfortunately.

For while Thomas indeed has a grasp of the ghazal form, he seems to have little to no grasp of poetry. His rhymes are pure, his rhythm as tight as can be expected in English, but his poems simply seem to lack substance. This lack of depth or substance seems to stem from two sources: Thomas’s misunderstanding of ghazalic disparateness and Thomas’s misunderstanding or severe lack, of imagery, and indeed, modern poetry.

Here Gage is implying that, for a Ghazal to have depth or substance, it must be disparate and there must be imagery.

I agree with Josh that traditional ghazals explore varying degrees of incontinuity. In fact, I most definitely explore this disparity in a variety of ways. Sometimes the disparateness of the couplets are extreme, sometimes they use layers of disparity within layers of thematic continuity and sometimes the incontinuity is more subtle. In my ghazals, each couplet holds its own within the ghazal as an independent poem, which is a primary attribute defining a ghazal couplet. What Gage implies as being "essential" to the ghazal is in fact a matter of personal preference and style. It is also a matter of degree. Varying degrees of disparity offer both the writer and reader a wider range of expression and experience within the garden walls of the ghazal.

As for imagery, this is another issue of style. I use imagery to support or convey an idea. I do not use imagery simply for the sake of splashing verbal images randomly into the reader's ken. In fact, I quite enjoy the exploration of using visual information to convey and support what I wish express in any given piece of writing.

Upon opening 'Discovering English Ghazal', we find a brief definition of ghazals. I agree with Thomas’s decision to place such a definition in his book, as the form still is misunderstood by so many poets. However, I disagree with the definition itself, specifically that a ghazal should be like “a pearl necklace”. While the idea of a necklace is appropriate (various objects strung together by a common thread) the idea of pearls, as opposed to jewels or beads, is what snags me. Pearls are similar, if not nearly identical. Jewels and beads are radically different from each other. Every ghazal essay, especially those by Ali, stresses the disparateness between stanzas. Each stanza should stand alone, and be completely separate from the poem save the rhyme and refrain. So while each of Thomas’s stanzas could, theoretically, stand alone as separate couplets, most of the time, they are simply too similar to each other to qualify as ghazals. While this technically is not a major flaw in the poetry, it does lead to some monotonous images, and therefor, monotonous poems. Indeed, one of the major tasks of ghazals is to keep the rhyme and refrain fresh, the variance between stanzas, and more importantly, their images, being the obvious way to keep the poem from dragging down.

Here Gage reiterates his belief that all ghazals should be disparate. He writes, "Each stanza should stand alone, and be completely separate from the poem save the rhyme and refrain."

What is interesting about this statement is the fact that a ghazal is not a poem. A ghazal is a series of poems. Stanzas are strophes within a poem, but in the ghazal, each couplet is not a stanza, but an independent poem. Ghazals have no stanzas because a ghazal is not a poem consisting of strophes. A ghazal consists of poems each in the form of a couplet. It is up to the writer of the ghazal to determine how much continuity or disparity will occur between these couplet poems. It seems to me that Gage does not yet fully understand the ghazal, and therefore cannot yet fashion a meaningful critique on anyone's work in the form.

In 'Uncovering English Ghazals', Thomas talks about an epiphany on disparateness between couplets. “Each ghazal binds to a theme, and in fact, each couplet within Hafiz’s ghazals seems to look at the same thing. It is just that rather than flowing couplet to couplet along the same lines of insight and reflection, each couplet offers a dramatically different perspective of what the ghazal as a whole is focused on. In a way, it is like looking through the eye of a dragonfly, each couplet is a facet in the eye, but the attention of each facet is focused on something in particular.” This, while a nice idea, leads to some extremely boring poetry if used improperly. I have heard of this theory as the “room theory” as well, in which the ghazal focuses on a table in the center of the room, but each stanza is written from a different wall or window in the room. For example, in “Defeated”, Thomas writes about affliction, and indeed an injured soul or spirit, using a dead baby as a metaphor for the experience. However, he keeps returning to the baby, to the point that he kills the thing four times before the poem is ended. The metaphor, while a solid one, becomes mute and almost obnoxious by the end, to the point that the reader is more interested in HOW the baby dies, and not the fact that it is dead. And this in poem no longer than a sonnet. When the couplets are disparate, Thomas’s ghazals do indeed excite and inspire. “Thoroughfare”, from 'Uncovering English Ghazal', is one such example..

Here Gage reiterates yet again his belief that all ghazals should be disparate and uses "Defeated (ghazal #65)", a ghazal from "Uncovering English Ghazal", as an example. Yet, Gage fails to offer even a single quote from this ghazal to support his attack. The disparity explored in "Defeated (ghazal #65)" is that of perception. Each couplet within the ghazal does return to the same circumstance, but does so from differing perspectives. Also, it appears Gage did not look very closely at this ghazal because he writes in relation to it, "the reader is more interested in HOW the baby dies, and not the fact that it is dead". As it turns out, "Defeated (ghazal #65)" does not explore the death of an infant at all, but the abuse of an infant who did not die when it should have.

Thoroughfare

Where fragrant lilies beautify the way,
Decaying corpses putrefy the way.

Brilliant sages point the way to heaven,
Yet we in bloodshed rubefy the way.

The way of peace was plain when life began,
Then darkness fell to mystify the way.

When through harsh places arid spans the way,
How hard it is to ratify the way!

Rivers flow the way of least resistance-
Plainness will always signify the way.

A vagrant walks the way with dignity,
Yet speaks no words to dignify the way.

Crying skies are not the way of sorrow,
They only serve to pacify the way.

If to the empty center leads the way,
There is no need to simplify the way.

The wind demonstrates the way of roaming,
But does not try to justify the way.

Who taught the fowl the way to warmer skies?
How is it that they verify the way?

Compassion is the way within us all,
But we must act to reify the way.

Death cannot endorse the way of living;
It also cannot mortify the way.

This dream is the way of dancing shadows;
Trusting this farce will falsify the way.

Who can hear the way the stars are calling?
They wait for us to stellify the way.

Each time Zahhar collapsed upon the way;
Has been a mean to clarify the way.

Woefully, most of Thomas’s ghazals are not of this caliber. Not only do they focus on one theme or one image to a point of excess, but they also seem to lack a potency that can only come from imagery. Thomas is wary in his use of imagery, to the point that he sacrifices his poems by its exclusion. He admits that to him, modern poetry is “a tossed salad of verbal images”. However, he does claim a belief in “visuals”, which “solidify the abstract and focus channels of interpretation where [he] would like them to go”. He against imagery for imagery sake, but is in favor of imagery if it aids the poem. Thus, a majority of his poems are completely void of images, but instead contain “visuals”, or “real life visual experiences that are used within the context of a memory or feeling in relation.” However, a majority of his “visuals” are so cliché or drab that they simply add nothing to the poem. And, when Thomas can’t find a “visual” or “image” to suit his purposes, he goes without, much to the detriment of the poem, and the reader. The old adage “Show, Don’t Tell” applies to a majority of Thomas’s work, to the point that the bulk of his poems come across as not poems, but sermons and dissertations, where ideas are spouted but immediately leave with no tangible weight to bear them into the mind. Thomas needs imagery, and while he seems fully against modern poetry, he needs to understand that he participates in that tradition, whether he wants to or not. Until the time machine is invented, his poems will always be read by a modern audience in a modern context, and therefor, anything devoid of images or imagery will be seen as trite. Shakespeare was successfully able to wield imagery, and very few editors would consider him or his poetry “modern.” Thus, even without the aid of modern poets, Thomas should be able to understand and use imagery. Until he is, we will be forced to rely on “visuals”, which seem to be in short supply.

Here Gage finally turns his focus away from ghazal disparity to imagery. Gage's ghazals demonstrate a deep investment in the paradigms surrounding surrealistic imagism and symbolism. I have made no such personal investment. I do enjoy the exploration and use of solid, coherent imagery in my writing. And, because the word "imagery" in American poetry has come to relate more to the disembodied, abstract use of surrealistic and symbolistic imagery, I like to refer to my style of using imagery as the use of "visuals".

I agree with Josh that the use of visual information can make poetry, and indeed prose, enjoyable to read. However, Gage's idea of imagery is the extremely abstract and disembodied imagery of surrealism and symbolism. As I pointed out, I have no personal investment in this form of poetry. However, I do make consistent use of solid and coherent imagery, but it seems that Gage does not consider non-surrealistic, non-symbolistic imagery, imagery at all.

At the beginning of 'Discovering English Ghazal', Thomas relates an incident in which an English professor insults his free verse, and instructs him to write villanelles. He insists that villanelles would be no problem, and upon researching them, as well as terzanelles, discovers ghazals, on which little to nothing had been published. This is in 2001. 'Ravishing Disunities' does take some liberties in what it accepts as ghazals, but a majority of the book contains complete, well-written, well-structured traditional English ghazals, abiding by all the rules of the form. 'Ravishing Disunities' was published in 2000. I suggest, if he has not already, that Thomas read this work, as well as the upcoming 'Call Me Ishmael Tonight', and learn what imagery and disparity add to the ghazal. I have a feeling that, in response to his teacher, Thomas may have followed all the rules of the form for a villanelle, but that’s all he did. Very few people can name more than half a dozen successful villanelles written in English, and even then rules are dropped all over the place (Elizabeth Bishop’s “One Art” as an example). Most villanelles, including a majority of the ones published, merely participate in the form. They are simply formal exercises with a few bright spots along the way, but are not truly successful poetry. In much the same way, Thomas merely participates in ghazals most of the time. There are a handful of good, possibly even great, poems in these two collections, enough to create a prize-winning collection, maybe. But definitely not enough for a chapbook manuscript, let alone two. So, to see what can be done with the ghazal form, to see a series of ghazal exercises, I encourage you to read Thomas’s 'Discovering English Ghazal' and 'Uncovering English Ghazal'. He does indeed have a mastery of the form. If you want to read something that transcends mere form, wait for Agha Shahid Ali’s collection to come out and hope for the best.

Here Gage returns yet again to the disparity issue and continues with his feelings about imagism. Gage also attacks works of mine that he has never seen, which clearly falls outside the realm of a critique of the chapbooks in question. Throughout his critique, Gage has gone back and forth between grudgingly admitting the strengths of my ghazals and snapping back to his personal feelings about disparity and imagery, as if a ghazal can only be a ghazal if they are disparate by his standards and use imagery in the way he feels imagery should be used.

Not only is this is a loose and disjointed critique, but it fails to demonstrate a real understanding of the ghazal and poetry in general. Never once does Gage point out that I take a metaphysical, formalist, verseform approach to writing ghazals, which is not only a valid approach to writing ghazals, but poetry in general. It is as if his knowledge of poetry is too limited to have any knowledge of formalist, verseform or metaphysical poetry. Gage simply sees that the ghazals are not written the way he personally feels poetry should be written in general and, based purely on this, considers my work a poor example of the ghazal. It seems to me that Gage is not yet educated or widely read enough to be taken seriously.

Return to Main Page or Top of This Page

Volume I & II: Discovering English Ghazal & Uncovering English Ghazal
LYNX, A Journal for Linking Poets (October 2002): review by Jane Reichhold, Editor

As with haiku, a book of ghazals still cannot be published without considerable effort given to definitions and other educational material on the form. However, in this case, Erin Thomas delights in this task and does an excellent job of making this form from the Middle East understandable.

However, it is in his poems that he gives the reader, for the first time in my experience of reading English ghazals, evidence that all the demanding aspects of the ghazal can be combined to make an excellent poem. His power of words is so vast that he makes it seem easy to create and then maintain the repeat and the varying rhyme schemes. The reader can become so fascinated with his gyrations of thoughts and words to fulfill this demanding aspect of ghazal writing that there were times I was tempted to first scan the poem for the endings of the second lines to see how he did it. Again and again his virtuosity invited pure astonishment. For those who have never experience a true English ghazal, please read and note how this ghazal from Discovering English Ghazal works:

These Aged Pines
(the remaining old growth redwoods)

Amid lush fern carpet stand perpending pillars;
Into broad canopy rise impending pillars.

Shady gloom in quiet calm hangs perpetual
Neath enshrouding shelter of attending pillars.

Ringlets firm encircle hearts of antiquity,
Deeply shielded within great suspending pillars.

More than stately; more than magnificently made,
High up into heavens reach transcending pillars.

Among elder giants Zahhar walks astonished,
His heart held uplifted by extending pillars.

The booklets are divided into sections, with each one opening with prose comments by Thomas which provide insight either into the poems or his life and serve to offer the reader a break from the intensity of the poems. Volume I offers: Reason, Expressions, Trees, Women, Kismet. The poems in volume II are sectioned by Affliction, Condition, Passing and Realizations. Thomas has set for himself the goal of writing one hundred ghazals, which he as nearly accomplished, so the readers are assured they will have many more of his outstanding ghazals for study and enjoyment.