#Bocas2017: 4 Powerful Questions with Safiya Sinclair, Ishion Hutchinson and Rajiv Mohabir

 Shivanee Ramlochan, Rajiv Mohabir, Ishion Hutchinson and Safiya Sinclair

The searing discussion entitled ‘Caribbean poetry’s New Wave’ unraveled on the final day of the NGC Bocas Lit Fest. The audience was seasoned with: writers, lecturers, poets, reporters, editors and even politicians. The programme read, “A new generation of thrilling Caribbean and diaspora poets is on the rise. Ishion Hutchinson, author of House of Lords and Commons, Rajiv Mohabir, author of the The Taxidermist’s Cut, and Safiya Sinclair, author of Cannibal (winner of the 2017 OCM Bocas Prize, poetry category), read from and discuss their highly acclaimed books; chaired by Shivanee Ramlochan.

 The ideas expressed in their combined, titanic body of work range from: the strength of heritage, brokenness of history, existence of a Caribbean people, religion, unique rhythm of Caribbean poetry, elemental aspects of life as well as music and history among many others.

Ramlochan ignited the fire with her first question directed at Hutchinson: “William Logan calls it (House of Lords and Commons) a book of a young man. He stated that before a poet breaks the wild horses of invention, he must capture them. How do you contend with such polite condescension?”

The audience hummed with obvious disdain for the half-masked comment. “My friends and our conversations help me to deal with being both private and public,” Hutchinson stated. Hutchinson went on to indicate that the editor’s comments did not disturb him because he does not feel that it is a critical discourse requiring a response. He emphasized his indifference by shrugging his shoulder and using the Jamaican multi expressive statement, “Cha and so it go.”

Sinclair, responding to the same question, stated boldly, “I don’t. For me, it’s just white noise, literally.” The other panelists showed their approval of her response with head nods. “I can’t pay attention to it. What is important is bettering the work.” Mohabir revealed that he deals with the situation by writing passive aggressive essays and publishing them in ‘white’ journals. 

Next, the use of the word ‘new’ is debated. Ramlochan asks, “Caribbean poetry’s new wave- new for whom, new to who, new from whom?”

Sinclair explored: “It’s not new to us- Caribbean, diaspora, marginalized.” She gave the example of persons who seemingly woke up to atrocities of history and the present only when someone they didn’t agree with won the election. The newness of the situation was only felt by those who have lived a privileged life. Those who were granted the privilege of ignorance. However, this is the reality of others.  

Hutchinson pursued a divergent thread of the issue. He states that there are different ways to think of new. When a poet writes, he makes a new slant even when the topic has already been written about. He furthers, it is about “making the familiar strange.”

           Mohabir added that “our black and brown bodies have been written about” for a long time. He emphasized the exchange of power that now occurs. He contended that what is new is that it is now being written about by the actual owners of the bodies. "I try to approach each poem with new eyes," he stated.

What to do with outrage on the page? Does anger kill the poetry or is it okay to deal with this anger on the page? How do you deal with this anger?

The three writers explored this question in different ways. Mohabir stated that through writing, we channel this "anger, racisms and subtle racisms." The page helps us deal with the injustices. While, Hutchinson believes that "the syntax indicates its passion." He continued, “Something jarring happens at the level of syntax.” Using the unevenness of the tercet, he contended that this may best suit the political unevenness of the day. “I am always searching for the ways in which I can see the poet is under duress in her craft apart from the politics,” he ended. "As a black, Jamaican woman, people always think I’m angry. I could sneeze and people think I’m angry,” Sinclair offered. “I am simply writing about things that need to be dismantled and if that’s me channeling my anger then I guess that’s what I’m doing.”

How do prize-givings and monetary residency, etc. affect the work?  Is the white jury different from white noise?

This potentially contentious question presented a valuable opportunity for the writers to address what may be seen as an inconsistency in thought. They all agreed that any earnings are well deserved. Sinclair views them as her "reparations." Hutchinson, though agreeing that earnings are well- deserved, reminded the audience that his world is Jamaica and though elements on the outside present a boost; nothing takes precedence. Mohabir agreed that anything is gained is rightfully so. He also believes in #takeitall.