Page 8 of 26 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 385
  1. #106
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    John Donne: “A Valediction: of Weeping”
    Reality and representation mix in this classic poem.

    BY JOEL BROUWER
    John Donne probably wrote “A Valediction: of Weeping” after he met his future wife, Ann More, and before he took holy orders and turned most of his authorial energies to sermons and spiritual meditations. We can’t be sure about the timing, though; while we have Donne’s biography and his poems, aligning the two is tricky. We know that Donne wrote poems only for himself and a close circle of friends and patrons, never for fame and seldom for publication. It would seem reasonable to guess that “A Valediction: of Weeping”—which, like a number of Donne’s love poems, dramatizes a scene of lovers parting—might have been written during the early years of his marriage, when Donne was often obliged to be away from home, leaving his young wife and children alone. But we can’t be sure that the poem isn’t wholly an act of imagination with no connection to Donne’s personal experience.

    This uncertainty has permitted some of Donne’s readers to regard his poems not as acts of self-expression, but as the abstracted, cerebral constructions of a fierce wit. Yes, the poems may be autobiographical, but Donne’s predilection for intricate rhetorical figures, paradoxes, surprising swerves in tone, associative leaps, and ingenious conceits can make them feel artificial, or made of artifice. Donne’s reputation as merely a wit made his work deeply unpopular for many years after his death. Probably the most famous condemnation came from Samuel Johnson, who labeled Donne’s style “metaphysical”—he didn’t intend the term as a compliment.

    In the early 20th century, incipient Modernists, most notably T.S. Eliot, found new layers of value in Donne. His perceived cool intellectualism seemed fresh and vigorous to poets grown weary of Romanticism’s emotionalism and emphasis on the self. Donne soon became a favorite of the New Critics as well. That school’s emphasis on reading poems as autonomous systems—discounting extra-textual considerations such as the author’s intentions and historical situation—was well suited to Donne’s poetry; his intentions are difficult or impossible to determine, and each poem he wrote seemed designed to function as, to use a phrase from one of Donne’s Holy Sonnets, “a little world made cunningly.”

    Donne’s poems in general, and “A Valediction: of Weeping” in particular, are certainly cunning. But it would be a mistake to think of them as nothing more than exercises in cleverness. We’ll find in this poem, as in many others by Donne, that his wit often serves as a means to a larger end rather than as an end in itself. The poem may be a highly organized “little world,” but it consistently gestures toward a larger world: the actual, chaotic, emotional one in which we live.

    “A Valediction: of Weeping” begins with a scene of two lovers parting:

    Let me pour forth
    My tears before thy face, whilst I stay here,
    For thy face coins them, and thy stamp they bear,
    And by this mintage they are something worth

    The poet is asking for his lover’s indulgence. If he cries now, while he’s still with her, her “face” will be reflected in his tears, transforming them from ordinary waste into objects of value—“coins.” The poet isn’t asking for a physical connection here; he doesn’t say “embrace me before I go.” Instead he seeks to reflect and be reflected by the beloved, at once emphasizing their connection and the fact that they are already—even now before his departure—undeniably separate. This dynamic might be similar to the one we enter into while reading Donne’s poem. On the one hand, the clever figures and rhyme scheme remind us that the poem is an artificial construct of symbols and sounds. But at the same time, the poem’s dramatic situation encourages us to identify with the speaker’s authentic human grief. Let’s look at the entire first stanza:

    Let me pour forth
    My tears before thy face, whilst I stay here,
    For thy face coins them, and thy stamp they bear,
    And by this mintage they are something worth,
    For thus they be
    Pregnant of thee;
    Fruits of much grief they are, emblems of more,
    When a tear falls, that thou falls which it bore,
    So thou and I are nothing then, when on a divers shore.

    The financial metaphor of lines 3 and 4 suggests that there’s a transaction involved here, and we see already an example of the kind of hall-of-mirrors paradox Donne so relished, and will soon use again, in this very poem. Perhaps the speaker is departing to earn actual coins to support the beloved. If so, that would be a gesture of unification and shared purpose, but at the same time one ironically requiring separation. In order to be with you, Donne seems to imply, I must leave you.

    In line 7 Donne suggests that his tears are both “fruits” of his present grief at parting and “emblems” of his future grief, when he will be away. (Of course, this “grief” might also be understood not as the grief of parting from the beloved, but as the grief of having to undertake the journey in the first place.) So the tears are literal and metaphorical, physical and symbolic, at the same time. Similarly, the poem as a whole can be seen both as a sincere expression of grief and as an “emblem”—a representation, that is—of grief.

    The next two lines feature a tricky metaphor for the speaker’s future sorrow:

    When a tear falls, that thou falls which it bore,
    So thou and I are nothing then, when on a divers shore.

    As his own tear falls, his beloved’s reflection falls with it. He and she both become “nothing”; her reflection falls and thus vanishes, and he, like his tear, departs. If he is departing on a sea voyage—as “divers shore” might suggest—then we may add another dimension to this already crowded conceit. Both tears and the sea are salty water, and here tears figuratively signify the impending separation, just as the sea will literally enforce it. Keeping in mind that a “fall” in a relationship can refer to unfaithfulness, this line could even be read as a premonition of adultery: the tears provoked by my sorrow at leaving you fall, just as you will fall into unfaithfulness when I’m gone. Following this line of thinking, “So thou and I are nothing then, when on a divers shore” turns to pure bitterness: when we’re apart, we’re nothing to each other.

    So while we could read this first stanza as the heartfelt cry of a lover in anguish, devastated to be separated from his beloved, it’s also possible to take these lines as the cynical complaint of a husband who feels persecuted in his role as breadwinner and, even worse, unsure of his wife’s fidelity. Which of these is the correct reading? It’s a natural question to ask, but also a misleading one, because the great pleasure in reading Donne lies in just this kind of ambiguity. His poems are incredibly detailed, specific, and intricate, but at the same time mysterious, vague, and elusive. Here again, we’re led to consider the ways in which the poem both invites us to identify with the speaker’s emotions, and reminds us that what we’re looking at here is not a person but a poem. We’ll see this dynamic continue throughout the rest of the poem, as Donne oscillates between the tangible and the conceptual, the literal and the metaphorical. By the time we get to the final lines, it may even seem that the poem is more concerned with the gap between reality and imagination than it is with its ostensible subject of two lovers parting.

    The next stanza introduces a new metaphor that is related—appropriately, given the occasion of the poem—to the idea of travel.

    On a round ball
    A workman that hath copies by, can lay
    An Europe, Afric, and an Asia,
    And quickly make that, which was nothing, all,
    So doth each tear,
    Which thee doth wear,
    A globe, yea world by that impression grow,
    Till thy tears mixed with mine do overflow
    This world, by waters sent from thee, my heaven dissolved so.

    This stanza’s transformation of a “nothing” into an “all” is similar to an idea expressed near the end of another Donne poem, “The Canonization.” Both poems use the figure of a world contained in a reflection, and in each case great stress is put on the metaphysical nature of that containment: the physical object is captured in a reflection, but so is the object’s essence. In “The Canonization” it isn’t just the “world” that is contained in the “glasses of your eyes,” but the “whole world’s soul.” The distinction is important. Donne is alluding to the Christian theory of transubstantiation, where the base physical representations of bread and wine are transformed, by the intercession of the Holy Ghost, into holy reality: the body and blood of Christ. Analogous processes occur in “A Valediction: of Weeping.” Much as the tears in line 7 were shown to be both physical “fruits” and metaphysical “emblems,” here Donne conflates reality (the “world” in which we actually live) and representation (the “globe” we use as an icon of that world). A blank ball is nothing until it’s overlaid with maps to become an “all.” A tear is nothing until it reflects the face of the beloved and becomes an “all.” And perhaps the poem itself is both a nothing—a mere collection of sounds and symbols—and yet also an “all,” a container for the poet’s genuine emotions.

    The final lines of the second stanza may contain the most knotty ideas in a very knotty poem:

    Till thy tears mixed with mine do overflow
    This world, by waters sent from thee, my heaven dissolved so.

    How are we to understand the phrase “This world” here? There are several possible readings, and as elsewhere in the poem, they range from the simple and concrete to the complex and abstract. “This world” could be the real world the lovers see around them: If we both cry, our eyes will fill with tears, and we literally won’t be able to see each other anymore. But of course the figure also works as a metaphor for the characters’ emotional states: Our mutual sorrow at parting destroys the heaven-on-earth we make when we’re together. Finally, keep in mind the maps Donne showed us earlier in the stanza. The speaker’s tears might also be obscuring his vision of that globe, a “little world made cunningly” that in turn represents the literal earth. Again Donne succeeds in “mixing” the real and the figurative.

    “Mixed” might not refer to a literal mixing of the two lovers’ tears, but instead to the process of reproduction—the oscillation of reality and representation—that is gradually manifesting itself as the poem’s central concern. The two lines might suggest that watery reflections of the lovers are being created and destroyed endlessly: in reflecting, or mixing with, each other’s tears, the lovers “overflow” and destroy those reflections, the faces-within-tears from the first stanza. We see the lovers’ (real) tears as images within images, endlessly generative and endlessly in decay.

    Immediately following his sequence of globe and water imagery, Donne compares his beloved to the moon, the sphere that controls the flow of tides.

    O more than moon,

    Draw not up seas to drown me in thy sphere,
    Weep me not dead, in thine arms, but forbear
    To teach the sea, what it may do too soon;
    Let not the wind
    Example find,
    To do me more harm, than it purposeth;
    Since thou and I sigh one another’s breath,
    Whoe’er sighs most, is cruelest, and hastes the other’s death.

    The beloved is “more than” the moon: not only can she can draw tears from herself, but she can pull those tears all the way up into her own “sphere,” or presence, where the poet is as well. Donne exhorts her not to use her power to “draw … up seas,” that is, to weep, because it could “drown” him in at least three ways. His reflection would be drowned when caught in her tears; seeing her cry would figuratively drown him in sorrow; and if her tears inadvertently “teach the sea” and give an “example” to the wind, he might literally be drowned when he sets sail on his voyage.

    The poem’s closing “breath” metaphor, which appropriately follows the “wind” image, once again asserts the union of the lovers: Because we breathe as one when we’re together, our sighs of sorrow use up each other’s breath, and so hasten each other’s death. As we might have expected, Donne ends the poem with a paradox. We tend to associate breath with life, but here an excess of breath leads to death. This metaphor, like the earlier tear/reflection conceit, warns the beloved that her physical expressions of grief—crying, sighing—cause emotional harm. When she cries she drowns his reflection in her tears; when she sighs she steals his life-breath. Once again, the metaphorical and the real appear to be so closely aligned as to become indistinguishable.

    This breath figure also has an echo in “The Canonization,” where we find similar images of the lovers as a single being:

    Call her one, me another fly,
    We are tapers too, and at our own cost die,
    And we in us find the eagle and the dove…

    In these lines, as in “A Valediction: of Weeping,” the poet and his beloved form one being. That’s not an original idea, but it becomes original when we note that in each case this union is destructive as well as creative. In “The Canonization” the lovers are both flies and the candles that burn the flies, so they “at [their] own cost die”: the fact of their union is also the cause of their destruction. “The eagle and the dove” is a similarly murderous figure, since eagles kill doves. So too in “A Valediction: of Weeping” the lovers are united—in teary reflections and in breath—but those very unions threaten the lovers with ruin. As in the lines about mixed tears overflowing “this world,” the poem’s closing lines suggest the idea of love as a self-perpetuating cycle of creation and destruction. The great achievement of “A Valediction: of Weeping” is its powerful evocation of this very paradox—not only in terms of the lovers, who appear to be simultaneously united and divided, but in terms of the poem itself, which persistently demands that we read it as both artificial and earnest, self-contained and suggestive, a “nothing” and an “all.”
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  2. Thanks Drummond thanked this post
  3. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post
    As a writer and a poet Kipling was a genius. Orwell condemned him for his patriotism and extremely strong sense of Christian morality! However Orwell, did not do so openly in a political philosophy attack, rather he attacked the man's work, the work that inspired tens of millions ! Inspires even to this day!
    To me, that is unforgivable and Orwell clearly showed his base nature, jealousy, envy and yes his liberal ideology.
    However, primary the first three bad traits I listed were the motivation for his scathing criticisms IMHO.-TYR
    Points taken, & thanks !
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  4. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
  5. #108
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    ESSAY
    Rimbaud in Embryo
    The lost poet Samuel Greenberg and the critical debate over his influence.

    BY JACOB SILVERMAN
    Rimbaud in Embryo
    Self-portrait by Samuel Greenberg, courtesy of the Fales Library & Special Collections, New York University.
    Some writers leave only traces, contrails across the literary firmament. They expire with few or no publications to their names, their legacies left as much to chance as to the efforts of the occasional passionate admirer. Contemporaries offer testimonies of superlative talent unfulfilled, of death robbing posterity of a name that, given time and circumstance, surely would have been added to the rolls of the great. And while some work might survive, appearing in the occasional anthology, it is shrouded in the pall of its author’s biography.

    Samuel Greenberg belongs in the pantheon of literary manqués. He’s not totally forgotten—a few hundred poems survive; some were published in posthumous editions. In the 95 years since his death at the age of 23, he has endured as the prototypical “cult writer,” his works passed around like samizdat and occasionally earning an ardent, powerful admirer.

    One of those admirers was Hart Crane, who, depending on your interpretation, drew significant influence from Greenberg or baldly plagiarized him. Crane’s poem “Emblems of Conduct” contains lines, either verbatim or with slight modifications, from six different Greenberg poems, including one called “Conduct.” Other work by Crane shows marks of Greenberg, whom Crane never met. The debate over just how much Crane took from Greenberg has animated Greenberg scholarship for decades, and has produced some worthwhile commentary on the nature of authorial influence. But at times it also obscures what is, on its own, a fascinating (albeit brief) life and oeuvre, deserving of its own consideration.

    Born in Vienna in 1893, Samuel Greenberg was the sixth of eight children. At the turn of the century, his family immigrated to the United States, settling in the crowded tenements of the Lower East Side. In those early years he attended public and religious schools, learning to read Hebrew, and had a bar mitzvah, but in 1908, the same year his mother died, he left school in order to work.

    The Greenbergs were a family of artisans. Samuel’s father worked with brocade, making decorative materials for synagogues’ Torah arks, and his brother Adolf made leather bags. After dropping out of school, Samuel worked with both of them.


    View larger image
    But sometime in 1912, around the same time he began writing poems in notebooks, Greenberg contracted tuberculosis and underwent what would be the first of many hospitalizations. Later that year, he also began taking piano lessons, though he reportedly had difficulty reading music and remaining focused. All the same, looking over one of Greenberg’s sketchbooks in the Fales Collection at NYU, which contains the bulk of his papers, I stumbled upon drawings of staff lines pebbled with musical notes, the name of each note written underneath; they were clearly some attempt at memorization. On the same page were a pair of delicately shaded hands—perhaps simply an exercise in anatomical drawing, though placed as they were, with the fingers curved slightly inward, they recalled a conductor leading an ensemble.

    Greenberg read deeply of the British Romantics, as well as Blake, Milton, and Wilde, but he had a particular regard for music, attending concerts when he could and writing poems about Richard Strauss and Mendelssohn. After a concert at Carnegie Hall, Greenberg gave a copy of his poem “The Pianoforte Artist” to pianist Josef Hofmann. (In an autobiographical essay addressed to his brother Daniel, Greenberg wrote of these concerts, “I know we liked it better than life!”) Another poem, riffing about Brahms’s Paganini Variations, sends the reader through a gyre of rhapsody: “In each phrase / Beats, the patriotism of lyre love, improvised impulse spreads / Its familiar Master glow, Communication with the spirit muse.”

    By April 1915, Greenberg was writing to William Murrell Fisher, a scholar and art critic whom Greenberg had met two years earlier at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in hopes of getting his work published. Time was running out for the young poet—“Sickness closed in with its careful teeth,” he wrote in that autobiographical essay. His tuberculosis had worsened (“the old story of weakness returned”); he had spent the previous two years in and out of hospitals, treatment facilities, and family members’ homes in New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. That summer, a doctor would remove a kidney. Through it all he wrote, not only hundreds of poems but also some short plays. When health allowed, he worked for his brother Adolf, the leather craftsman.


    View larger image
    Greenberg was also a prolific painter and sketch artist. Many of his sketches are of young men, done on scraps of paper or in small, dilapidated sketchbooks, and he reportedly liked to sit in Washington Square Park, where he drew strangers. The men tended to be in profile, finely dressed; occasionally they appeared as the barest silhouette, as if evaporating from the page. He also drew self-portraits—one shows him lounging in an ornately carved wooden chair, staring out almost playfully—and illustrations of his family members and fellow hospital patients. (One sketch is dedicated “to my friend William Fisher” and dated February 1915.)

    The sketchbooks doubled as all-purpose notebooks. Besides the musical notations, there are scraps of verse and one apparently undelivered note, which reads, “Young man — 19. — wishes position in any office,” and is signed below.

    Some of Greenberg’s handwriting is cramped and nearly indecipherable. In the Fales Collection, a line stuck out for me. It appeared below a simple, blocky sketch of a man’s dour face, cigarette prominently perched between his lips. The poet had written, “It is the gazing at the people one gets that way.”

    With his own fragile health and both of his parents having died young, Greenberg was deeply conscious of his own mortality. In his drafts, he dated and initialed each poem, perhaps with an eye toward posterity. In the work itself, he treated death with respect but also not without a kind of sly playfulness. In the poem “To Dear Daniel”—Daniel was one of Samuel’s brothers—Greenberg wrote, “There is a loud noise of Death / Where I lay; / There is a loud noise of life / Far away.” The speaker knows that he is closer to his end than to his beginning. Some poems respond to death with disbelief that it could come so prematurely. One piece opens with the following lines: “Nurse brings me Medicine! Medicine? / For me! God, 20 years old! / Medicine!? I’ll leave it to thee! / The truth is a draught!”

    Greenberg’s poetry employed bizarre spelling and syntax (many editions of his work have smoothed over these errors, at the cost of authenticity). He also tended to create what Philip Horton, an early Hart Crane biographer, called “archaic contractions”—'pon, e'en, e'er. Some words are unexpectedly capitalized. This is easily chalked up to his autodidact nature, but it may also owe something to Greenberg’s taste for Milton and Blake and the short plays he wrote, which were a mélange of Spenserian fantasy and Elizabethan drama. Like some of his poems, these plays took place in what New Directions founder James Laughlin, who published the first book of Greenberg’s poems in 1939, described as a “literary mythland.” One short drama, which I read in the Fales Collection, is titled “Capablanka” and dated October 1916. It concerns an anthropomorphic statue (the list of dramatis personae calls it “a motional statue”), three woodsmen, a talking “fairy snake,” and “an unknown magician” named Valotif, as well as several others.

    Told in three short acts—the whole thing is only about 16 pages in typescript—the play’s basic action is mostly intelligible, but its prose tends toward the opaque, at times appearing like a deliberately obscure pastiche of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. It features Greenberg’s characteristic spelling—“obsured,” “devine,” “familiars” used as a verb—and some evocative lines that show the beauty of what Laughlin called his “unconscious dictation.” “I varnish his throat,” one of the woodsmen offers by way of a threat; another, not believing that a monument can move, claims that there are “no such furies in granite”; the third speaks of “the cliffs sea / that moan their messages of wander foam / and dash over high sprays of lust.”

    Perhaps fearful of giving him more than his due, critics have tended to praise and condemn Greenberg in a single line. They often dwell on his wildness, his untended lyricism, considering it both a virtue and a deficit, deeply intertwined.

    John Berryman once remarked that Greenberg had “some power of phrasing” but “with rare exceptions so little control over syntax.” Thomas Lux, in his poem “Here’s to Samuel Greenberg,” describes Greenberg as “semi-illiterate / coughing it out among total / illiterates during the only time / in your life you had time / to write: on your back.” And yet, later in the same poem, Lux refers to him as “small master.”

    Laughlin vacillated between even greater extremes, writing in the 1939 introduction: “The poetry of Greenberg is not great poetry, and it is not even important minor poetry ... and yet ... poetry it is, pure poetry, to an extent equalled by the work of few other writers.”

    Philip Horton, writing in the Southern Review in 1936, also knocked Greenberg down before building him back up. “One has the successive impressions that the author was mad, illiterate, esoteric, or simply drunk,” Horton wrote. “And yet there flash out from this linguistic chaos, lines of pure poetry, powerful, illuminating, and original, lines unlike any others in English literature, except Blake’s perhaps.” Repeatedly, we observe a strange kind of diffidence: Greenberg is both semi-illiterate and a master, a powerful lyricist but out of control, not even a minor poet but also a creator of “pure poetry” (a phrase that both Laughlin and Horton used).

    Could he be all of this—not either/or but both/and? Or did these critics, particularly the early ones such as Horton and Laughlin, not fully understand what they were looking at? The former called Greenberg “a visionary” before going on to ask, “But who was he, or is he? Did Hart Crane, who had his poems, know?”

    Indeed, it is in Crane that we find someone whose critiques of Greenberg serve only to amplify his appreciation of him, cementing the picture of Greenberg as an untutored, untamed, and splendid lyricist—the poet equivalent of a naïve artist. Crane, in a letter to Gorham Munson praised Greenberg’s “hobbling yet really gorgeous attempts.” In the tragic poet’s work, Crane saw “a quality that is unspeakably eerie and the most convincing gusto.”

    Crane first encountered Greenberg’s work in the winter of 1923–24. Greenberg had already been dead for six years, and Crane was staying in Woodstock, New York, where he spent time with William Murrell Fisher, likely the only person to know both men. Fisher showed Crane some of Greenberg’s poems, and Crane was immediately electrified, pacing around the room, declaiming lines.

    In his letter to Munson, Crane also called Greenberg “a Rimbaud in embryo”—an epithet that makes some sense, as Rimbaud, though better educated, had left school by 15 and was done with poetry by 20. It’s difficult not to think in turn of Victor Hugo’s own description of Rimbaud: he called the fiery young poet “an infant Shakespeare.” In both cases, the young poet is granted a claim toward genius, but his precocity—he is embryonic, or he is an infant—somehow holds him back.

    Rimbaud was a proto-surrealist, and in some of Greenberg’s work, one finds a surrealist bent. Laughlin cited Greenberg’s “The Pale Impromptu” as surrealist, “with its use of words for their own sake.” Its coded narrative and succession of disjointed phrases—“Water waves / torque blocks / Skulls of saints / patience absent / Yellow dreams / Sensive Stirs / Silent hills”—support this assessment. But Greenberg’s best work forsakes this experimentation, instead melding passionate first-person narratives—about the sea, death, God, poetry, mythological landscapes—with imagery that shimmers because it appears all the more carefully rendered.

    Yet he also showed a surprising talent for restraint. “Conduct” begins with a painter illustrating a valley before giving way to Technicolor descriptions of an exploding volcano and darkening skies. But then Greenberg dials down his music to a pianissimo, and the poem resolves with a curious, almost mournful scene:

    The wanderer soon chose
    His spot of rest, they bore the
    Chosen hero upon their shoulders
    Whom they strangly admired — as,
    The Beach tide Summer of people desired

    After their meeting, Fisher gave Crane a sheaf of Greenberg’s poems and Crane set about retyping them. This sort of transcription, or re-scription, has been a common practice among writers for ages, but Crane took the process further. Greenberg, like such poets as Whitman before him, drew inspiration from the Brooklyn Bridge, and after copying Greenberg’s “The ‘East River’s Charm,” Crane added the following lines:

    And will I know if you are dead?
    The river leads on and on instead
    Of certainty...

    Drawing on “Conduct” as well as five other Greenberg poems, Crane cobbled together “Emblems of Conduct” from January to March 1924. (Marc Simon’s forensic analysis of Crane’s borrowings is the essential work on this subject. Simon, a literary scholar whose NYU PhD dissertation was about the Greenberg/Crane connection, would go on to edit The Complete Poems of Hart Crane.) He changed some lines, tinkering here and there, but the resulting three stanzas are largely a collage. Laughlin compared the final product to “centones of the Middle Ages, those patch-work poems in which Christian stories were told in lines torn from their contexts in pagan authors.” Laughlin continues, largely approvingly: “Crane did more than steal from Greenberg—he recreated, making something entirely new, entirely his own, from the original materials.”

    The contemporary term for this is remixing, which at the moment has much cultural cachet. While I acknowledge the worth of remix in anything from Warhol to hip-hop sampling, it’s difficult not to think that Crane took more than his fair share and that he has benefited from his (understandable) stature as the greater poet. But many critics feel compelled to defend Crane, as if criticizing him in this instance, arguing that he let his enthusiasm for Greenberg get away from him, would undercut his otherwise formidable achievements.

    “I do not think we even need to mention the word plagiarism,” Laughlin writes in his introduction to the 1939 volume, though he does just that. “We must strongly censure Crane for his failure to clearly state his source,” yet “no doubt he meant to acknowledge his debt ... it simply slipped his mind.” Yes, no doubt. It’s a pale justification, for Crane could have easily included a line of dedication or acknowledgment.

    Another Crane biographer, Paul L. Mariani, calls Crane’s borrowings “problematic.” “Emblems of Conduct” was “a dreamlike poem, uncharacteristic of Crane,” Mariani writes, and “Crane’s attempt to take by eminent domain the scattered remains of a dead young poet was not, finally, one of his best efforts.”

    But notions of influence, even of plagiarism, are rarely clear, even when, as in this case, there is a large body of inculpatory evidence. As Marc Simon has shown, Greenberg was not wholly sui generis. In 1915, Fisher gave Greenberg a copy of Thomas Carlyle’s Heroes and Hero-Worship (an apposite title, given the relationships here), and some of Carlyle’s imagery describing Iceland’s geography made it into Greenberg’s “Conduct” and, later, Crane’s “Emblems of Conduct.” Greenberg’s borrowings were not so direct, but they give some sense of where he looked for his own raw materials.

    Greenberg may never escape the shadow of Hart Crane (though he surely deserves to have his complete works, including the drawings, published in a new edition). But the obligatory irony is that without Crane’s, say, overabundant enthusiasm for poems like “Conduct,” we might never know of Greenberg’s poetry at all. In stealing from Greenberg, Crane assured the lesser poet’s immortality.

    Still, there is some sadness in knowing that Greenberg’s work will never quite stand on its own. Despite his fragile health and lack of education, Greenberg was uncommonly prepossessing. “The poet seeks an Earth in himself,” he wrote in one verse. He sought a world of his own making, but it was to be an ephemeral one, as he was subsumed by forces—and poets, too—greater than himself.

    Originally Published: November 27, 2012
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  6. #109
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    Useful Old Rhymer
    --------------------------------------------Laura Kasischke on Thomas Tusser.

    BY LAURA KASISCHKE
    For the brief and perhaps best years of my life, when I was mother to a very young child, I found myself most nights in the company of poets, wits, storytellers, moralists, advisors, and pundits-lite who offered their words up to my son and myself for our pleasure, our safety, our welfare, our betterment, and our instruction. I never doubted for a moment that Margaret Wise Brown had written The Runaway Bunny because she foresaw a time when my son might doubt the fierceness of his mother’s love and need the reassurance that it was not only eternal but all-powerful: “If you become a fish in a trout stream,” said the mother, “I will become a fisherman and I will fish for you.”

    And how many other poets and storytellers explained the essentials to us! How to tie a shoe. How to grieve a pet. How to sleep in the dark. How to count to ten. How to stand up for yourself. How to be a friend. How to eat food you fear.

    We had a lot of books, and there were a lot of years, a lot of bedtime stories, and then he got a driver’s license and a girlfriend and my library shelves seemed strangely bare of  books that had been written with a reader’s well-being in mind. In fact, I realized, I could run my fingers down the length of four bookshelves full of the contemporary poetry I love and not find more than a volume or two that seemed to have been written with a reader in mind at all, let alone that 
reader’s life.

    That’s why I love Thomas Tusser. His thousands of  lines of  poetry 
more than prove to us that he was devoted to the art, that his poetic ambitions were great, but you can’t read one of those lines and not know that he has taken up the craft for your sake, that he is writing to tell you something, and that he wants what he’s saying to matter to you, to make your life richer, easier, safer, and in all ways more 
understandable. True, Tusser is a didactic poet, and although “didactic” 
may have earned its bad reputation (Poe named didacticism as the worst of the poetic heresies), in the case of  Tusser we are reminded that poetry which educates can also be beautiful, meaningful, and fun. When I turn to the Five Hundred Points of Good Husbandry, 
after a longish spell spent reading contemporary poets, I am startled to encounter a poet who is writing to me, for me, and who has 
chosen poetry as a way to communicate — across distance, time, and space — with me (the reader) in his mind.

    It’s believed that Thomas Tusser was born around 1524. He died in 1580. He was an educated man who, through a variety of circumstances, found himself spending his life as a farmer. By most accounts, he was not successful at it, but he must have loved it. His long poem on Good Husbandry records a country year in rhyming couplets, and his advice and observations pretty much cover everything from the lending of tools to the castration of roosters, the nature of the afterlife to the ten characteristics (via negation) of the perfect cheese:

    Not like Gehazi, dead white, like a leper
    Not like Lot’s wife, all salt
    Not like Argus, full of eyes
    Not like Tom Piper, “hoven and puffed”
    Not like Crispin, leathery
    Not like Lazarus, poor
    Not like Esau, hairy
    Not like Mary Magdalene, full of  whey or maudlin
    Not like the Gentiles, full of maggots
    Not like a Bishop, made of   burnt milk

    In his poetry, Tusser comes across as what he was said by his contemporaries to have been — a thrifty, intelligent, kind man, who wants you to succeed. His work is full of weather-lore, country customs, maxims and proverbs (“Sweet April showers, / Do spring May flowers”), and comforting predictions right alongside dire warnings. The poetry lets us know that he has learned his lessons the hard way, and that he wants to save his readers that trouble if  he can.

    And although Thomas Tusser doesn’t seem to care much about whether he’s reaching great poetic heights, he often reaches them. Part of this is his musical ear, but the rest might be attributed to the reverence he has for his material, the respect with which he 
approaches his reader, and, of course, the everyday hallowedness of life and work on the farm. Robert Southey called him a “good, honest, 
homely, useful old rhymer.” Clearly, that’s what Tusser wanted to be.

    What a noble ambition when it is combined with an empathetic 
spirit! That Tusser’s book was to be found on the mantles of so many farmers in his day speaks to how much Tusser had to say to his peers; and, although both poetic traditions and agricultural ones have changed greatly since his period, what we learn from Tusser today, and from the real relationship, the true communication, he sought to have with his reader — well, what we have to learn from Tusser shames and thrills me with its honest compassion, its urgent desire to be of service, and its plain, sane, sacred ambition to write poetry that will be read, remembered, and understood.

    Originally Published: February 1, 2013
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  7. #110
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    PROSE FROM POETRY MAGAZINE
    Nature and Panic
    Can beauty save us?

    BY C. K. WILLIAMS
    The first evidence we have of any human doings with nature other than utilitarian artifacts for hunting and fishing are the Paleolithic paintings in caves in France and Spain. These great works of art were created over a period of twenty thousand years, and then stopped; we don’t really know why they first began to be created or why they didn’t continue.

    I think most of us have been tempted to play the game of trying to intuit the vast number of individuals who were born and died during those uncountable millennia and to imagine what a single person’s life, a “first person” in both senses of the term, would really have been. For me, the daydream invariably leads me to picture my poor ancestor living in almost constant fear of threats to life and well-being: the predators, the droughts, the erratic cold that sometimes descended and stayed for thousands of years, and sometimes, for reasons we still don’t understand, didn’t. “Nasty, brutish, and short,” to quote the Hobbesian cliche.

    So, were those people really that much more anxious for themselves than we are? To return to the Paleolithic paintings: there’s little evidence of anguish or dread in their subject matter and execution. The creatures in them are depicted with accuracy and detail and with that breathlessly assured brushwork that could have been acquired through nothing but aesthetic dedication and love. There are almost no depictions of nature as threatening. In one painting there’s a lion, but she’s treated with a whimsical humor; in another two, someone seems to have been killed by a bison, the beginning of what some researchers suspect may have been a series of myths. The only truly malignant matters that are recorded in the caves are a few mysterious and so far uninterpreted recumbent human figures, riven with what seem to be spears: they were possibly murdered, perhaps even tortured. But generally, if the society in which these artists lived was fraught with fear, it certainly isn’t manifested in their work. Even their span of years, it turns out, wasn’t as short as was once thought: the most recent evidence suggests that people during these eras regularly lived to the age of fifty or sixty.

    At the same time, if we pull back a little and consider larger currents of human existence, there does seem to have been ample reason for anxiety. The climate, as I mentioned, often dramatically changed in those epochs. There were long droughts and, at some point, the almost total dying off of reindeer, which had been humans’ primary food—with what precise consequences we probably will never know, beyond that humans somehow adapted, and survived.

    And we also can’t possibly know whether any single person, or group, or group of generations would have been aware, and especially daunted, by these grim developments. Perhaps one year, winter came earlier; perhaps another year, the reindeer migrations arrived later, then not at all. Would there have been a history to contain these matters? We don’t know that either, but if there was, what would have been the emphasis of those who recorded it? Would they have been depressives, manic-depressives, optimists, pessimists?

    I’ll continue on a more personal note. Like many people I know, I often have a somewhat—no, a wholly—frightening vision of the future of humanity and of our earth. There are periods when I live in a state of acute anxiety, indeed, near panic, about what awaits our children and grandchildren. Last year, I realized one day that every poem I was writing, or attempting to write, had global warming and its consequences either as its overt or implied theme. Sometimes I’m depressed beyond writing or saying anything at all; I fall into a funk that threatens never to end.

    Given all the evidence that’s being accumulated about global warming and its ramifications, this seems a perfectly reasonable response to the only future in sight. However, I’ve also had to realize over the course of my life that I’m intrinsically somewhat of a depressive person, about much else besides the end of the world, and that my instinctive response to fear, or threat, or despair is to plunge deeper into the darkness that so readily takes me. It required a long time for me to notice that many people respond differently; some friends, for instance, who, when deeply concerned about large matters, can turn readily away from them to a relatively cheerful vision of existence, while I go on brooding, frightened, trembling. And certainly not unsensible public figures can manage to convey a bright vision that confounds personalities like mine. One of my favorite recent examples is Fred Kavli, a wealthy scientist philanthropist who recently established a program of million dollar prizes for scientists and who announced at the first presentation ceremony: “The future is going to be more spectacular than we can ever imagine.” I hope with all my heart that he knows something I don’t.

    I’ve come to wonder lately what the implication of all this is for my life and work as an artist, a poet. Certainly the traditions of literature, particularly in the last century and a half, have had their fair share of dark personalities—more than mere pessimists, sometimes outrageous nihilists. One of my most enduring poetic influences has been Baudelaire, hardly a paragon of healthy thought. Don’t I have a right to express my own sadnesses? I have often enough, Lord knows, in the past, and I’m sure I will again, but at the same time, mightn’t there be some responsibility in my artistic endeavors I hadn’t suspected, hadn’t conceived of, until now?

    Surely the most extreme vision of the future in recent literature is Cormac McCarthy’s novel The Road. McCarthy is a novelist of craft, with a powerful gift for verisimilitude, and in his book he puts all his talents at the service of the literally darkest non–science-fiction fate that has ever been conceived for human beings. The earth—land and sea—is black with soot and ash, utterly silent except for the wind, some mysterious intermittent explosions, and the several words, most of them threats, human beings still manage to pass between them, before, in many cases, they devour each other. Those of you who have read the book know that the word “grim” hardly begins to do justice to the sheer horror McCarthy inflicts on the planet, and on us, his readers.

    I use the word “inflict” intentionally. I’m not the only person I know who’s expressed regret at having ingested the book: I feel sometimes indignant that I have to have it in my consciousness. If there ever was a book that embodied the extremity of the emotion we call panic, this has to be it. I find it’s like having a piercing scream in my mind, one that, when the book comes to mind, which it does more often than I’d like, goes off like a siren.

    Another recent, much different, book that deals with the possible dark times ahead of us is Gretel Ehrlich’s The Future of Ice—also a book of premonition and dire prophecy. I’ll admit that when I began reading it, I thought I wouldn’t be able to go on. Ehrlich’s prognostications about the grim future in store for the world seemed mostly to consist of information I already possessed—reading it felt like watching an autopsy of a living body. As I went further into the book, though, I was taken with its intimacy, its presentation of an actual person living a real life while at the same time reflecting on so much melting away, and I found the book finally inspiring, perhaps because it doesn’t manifest the kind of annihilating cosmic panic that McCarthy’s book does. It tells of the passions and sadnesses of experiencing, having to experience, the fear of knowing what may come to us, but all of that is tempered by the dailiness of the life and loves of the author. The Future of Ice contains its own epigraph, its own enduring motto: “Beauty saves me.” Until I went back to look for the phrase to quote, I had remembered it as “Beauty saves us,” and I’ve allowed myself to keep it that way.
    I find it a bit odd to be using the word “beauty” this way. I’ve never thought terribly hard about the concept, certainly not as a theoretician, which I’m emphatically not. We all, though, have ideas about what is beautiful and what isn’t, and generally we think we know why. And it is, or at least was, tempting, as a poet, to try to be an aesthetician rather than an artist: there’s an aura of immediate authority associated with the one that isn’t associated with the other. I know that at any moment I’ll be able to think and talk for five or ten minutes about beauty: I never know whether in the next five or ten minutes or five or ten years I’ll be able to create any.

    Beauty won’t save the world from the depredations with which it’s already been savaged, but it can save us from the enervating despair that is the outcome of panic, that paralysis that might keep us from doing what we can to confront what’s before us. We’ll never know how our ancestors, so put upon by the enormous unknown world in which they found themselves, persevered and survived, but we do know that they bequeathed to us, and probably infused into our genes, the conviction that the dream and execution of the beautiful made the world ours in a way nothing else could.
    However it happens—by whatever complex, forbiddingly imprecise, dauntingly imperfect means—all over the world, if not every day then in every age, art is created and beauty manifested: beautiful paintings and poems and pieces of music and buildings are generated. One can almost imagine small flaring lights on the surface of the earth, like those seen in photos from space, though they are much sparser and more scattered than the illuminating devices that bespeckle our globe. And then over time these embodiments of the beautiful are harvested, amassed, collected in books, in museums, in concert halls, to be distributed into the lives of individual human beings, to become crucial elements of their existence. Often, our experience of beauty will be the first hint of what each of us at some point will dare call our soul. For don’t those first stirrings of that eternally uncertain, barely grasped notion of something more than mere mind, mere thought, mere emotion usually first come to us in the line of a poem, a passage of music, or the unreal yet more than real image in a painting?
    And isn’t it also the case that beauty is the one true thing we can count on in a world of insufferable uncertainty, of obdurate, relentless moral conflicts? I’ve wondered sometimes if humans invented gods not to tend to our moral or immoral selves but to have something appropriately sensitive and grand and wise enough to appreciate these miraculous modes of beauty that are so different in material and quality from anything else in the world. Might gods have first been devised not to assuage our fears and hear our complaints and entreaties but for there to be identities sufficiently sublime to understand what those first painters and sculptors, and surely, though the words and tunes have been lost, those poets and singers had wrought?

    Perhaps this is why those first great art works were executed deep in caves, so as to be certain the divinities who were their audience wouldn’t be distracted by the wonder of the natural world, and so lose the concentration necessary to glory in, and be glorified by, these singular human creations that equaled and even surpassed what had been given by nature for meditation. And perhaps that’s why poets and painters, who may half-remember such matters, go off into what can look to others like solitary caverns, shadowed with loneliness, but which surely aren’t. Beauty saves us. Beauty will save us. The world, though, is still ours to cherish, and ours to protect.

    Originally Published: October 1, 2012
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  8. #111
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default


    Rae Armantrout: “Our Nature”
    How did you become who you are?


    BY STEPHEN BURT
    Look at an old picture of yourself—a candid group photo is best, but a posed head shot or even a painting will do. How would you have described yourself back then? Would you describe yourself the same way now? How much do you have in common with the person whose portrait you see? Did you want to stand out? Can you feel proud, special, melancholy, or just resigned when you realize how much you have grown up and changed? In “Our Nature,” Rae Armantrout pursues such questions in her characteristically terse, harsh style.

    An Armantrout poem can make no claim, and pursue no query, without trying to undermine its own terms: under the patient pressure of her short lines, key words in this poem, such as “nature” and even “latest,” can seem to come apart from their usual meanings, even as we come apart from our previous selves. Like most of her poems, “Our Nature” invites us to seek ironies and uncover the dubious axioms under each phrase. It also stands out, among those poems, for the open pathos of its ending, which addresses the life of an ambitious artist, and perhaps also the afterlife of an art movement, even while it asks about the changes that can pry any of us apart from our friends.

    The poem begins with a look at an old image, or perhaps a general claim about the images that remain in our minds:

    The very flatness
    of portraits
    makes for nostalgia
    in the connoisseur.

    All pictures are “flat” compared to real life, though some revel in their flatness, while others disguise it; what could be flat, in particular, about a portrait, and why would that “flatness” provoke “nostalgia”?

    A portrait presents one moment, in space and in time: it is thus “flat” compared to the four-dimensional (in time and space) extent of a life, and looking back over that life might well prompt “nostalgia.” But to be “flat” or two-dimensional is also to look unreal. Is all portraiture unrealistic, in words or in visual art? Are all our mental portraits “unrealistic” as well, turning evolving personalities into all too comprehensible objects, as if we could possess the people we knew?

    Considered thoroughly enough, do our ideas about people dissolve, as a picture dissolves or loses focus, when looked at for long? The second stanza, like a second take or a second look at the same picture, enacts that dissolution, with help from puns:

    Here’s the latest
    little lip of wave
    to flatten
    and spread thin.

    Here a person’s “little lip” becomes the edge of a wave. Armantrout, who has always lived on the West Coast (in San Diego and in northern California), once censured another poet for comparing the sea to beads, since “the ocean can resemble a vertical sequence of discrete, solid objects in almost no way imaginable.” “Our Nature” seems to assert that we, too, are less like “discrete, solid objects” than our habits—and other poets’ “portraits”—assume. Our impressions of the people we think we know are more like a series of low waves, coming at us and then, usually, falling away. That image of liquid succession (“the latest” impression, and then something later still) gains force and irony from its contrast with the self-contained, solid, “hard” stanza in which it rests.

    If the poem ended there it would be a cryptic rebuke, reminding us with a dry, uneasy authority that people always change. But Armantrout has more to say. Let’s say / it” becomes a hinge on which the poem turns, leaving the self-contained, pronoun-less quatrains behind. In their stead, we find one extended sentence, broken into one- and two-line bits, about a group of friends or allies who stuck together long enough to share adventures and to establish a “loyalty” later overruled, or contradicted, by the ambitions of its members (“our infatuation / with our own fame”).

    Earlier Armantrout described everyone; now she speaks primarily of an “us,” who might be her generation, or her friends, or her political and artistic allies. The figure in Armantrout’s poem, one of the people included in her pronoun “we,” wants to show inner consistency as well as moral worth (we might say, encompassing both, that she wants to show character). But she is betrayed by her nature: “our nature,” human nature, or the nature of art, which undermine whatever character they construct. It is the nature of artists and their “gang” to strive for eminence, even at the cost of disconnection, as it is the nature of youthful “gangs” to grow apart. Outlaws of the Old West, quick on the draw, like the guerrilla movements of more recent decades, sometimes prided themselves on how they could “blend in // with the peasantry,” escaping the law. Remembering their subterfuges, Armantrout also invokes bands of youth, in schools or in street gangs, whose loyalty to one another cannot last, since it conflicts with their members' desire to get ahead in the adult world. (The young W.H. Auden, too, wrote that “love” required the “death of the old gang.”)

    It’s tempting to associate Armantrout’s “old gang” with the real people who became her friends and allies early in her career: the Language writers, named after the magazine L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E, one of several small journals from the 1970s (others include Hills and This) whose young, left-wing contributors declared their opposition to first-person lyric, to traditional narrative, and to any poems that emulated clear prose. Other Language writers included, on the West Coast, Ron Silliman, Lyn Hejinian, and Bob Perelman, and in New York City, Bruce Andrews and Charles Bernstein.

    It is hard to read “Our Nature,” which comes from Armantrout’s book Veil (2001), without thinking about how Language writing, with its sometime promise of ego-less investigation, of radical anti-subjective critique, actually became (for better and worse) a name for a group of sometimes superb individual poets and poems. Armantrout recently collaborated with nine other Language writers on The Grand Piano (2006–10), “an experiment in collective autobiography” that tells the story of their West Coast scene. She seems, in retrospect, essential to that scene, though she did not publish prolifically in the early years, when she ran the reading series that gave The Grand Piano its name. And yet she admits, “I spent most of the 70s wondering whether I was in or out of the new nexus [of the Bay Area avant-garde]. (In that way it was a little bit like junior high.)." She remembers asking, at that time, "What was this new poetics that later came to be known as ‘language poetry’ and was I part of it or not?”

    For a writer of Armantrout’s skeptical temperament, emerging from a shared movement or moment, the desire to stand out—though perhaps part of “our nature”—must have been especially vexed and vexing. Her poems remain ambivalent about ambition, as her halting manner—the matter of this self-critical poem, with its silenced “fast gun”—might imply. Yet they stay ambivalent about loyalty, too, since loyalty can discourage critical thought. Hopes for group belonging, no less than aspirations to singularity, make Armantrout ask herself how she knows what she knows, and what her wishful thinking might conceal. “I do wonder,” she asked in The Grand Piano, “how much we, ‘language poets,’ identify with and/or objectify one another.”

    Readers who single out Armantrout among other Language writers often notice her links to traditions of lyric poetry, that is, to brief poems whose singularities of sound represent a single voice, a single speaker, a putatively unique inward life. Writing in the New Yorker in 2010, when Armantrout won the Pulitzer Prize, Dan Chiasson claimed that Armantrout “takes the basic premises of Language writing somewhere they were never intended to go: towards … a single individual’s … uniquely broken heart.” We may hear in this poem, with its rueful plural (“we,” not “I”), anticipatory reaction to such praise.

    Yet Armantrout’s lines in “Our Nature” do not fit just one movement or moment, nor do they confine themselves to one art. How can we all succeed together in an enterprise where individuality and unique achievement is held out as the goal and the prize? And what if that enterprise is not art, but life? Most of us want to be “singled out” or noticed in some way, even if we do not try to write new kinds of poems; most of us also want, or at one time wanted, to stand with our peers, to keep our friends, to stay close.

    We rarely get both; sometimes we get neither one. That broader disappointment informs Armantrout’s lines too: they end up with something like a tragic sense of how we grow up, itself the kind of sense sometimes, and wrongly, denied to the densely suggestive and demanding poetic traditions from which her style arose.

    And yet the word “nature,” repeated in the penultimate line, should put us on alert, since Armantrout’s poems so frequently (as she has put it) “examine claims to naturalness and objectivity carefully to find out what or who is being suppressed.” Whose nature is ours? Was it always ours? Who are “we”? Should we resign ourselves to the alienating consequence of our ambitions, as inevitable as waves on sand, or can we construct some better choice?

    Armantrout elsewhere likens her poems’ fitful movement to the mythical worm Ouroborous, which ate its own tail. Punning lines from her poem “Falling: I” warn us not to believe the stories we tell ourselves: “To swallow your own tail— // or tale— / is no longer // an approved / form of transportation.” It does not say what we should swallow, nor how we should transport ourselves, instead. Similarly, the ending of “Our Nature,” having pointed out “our infatuation,” leaves us with no clear place to stand, no more reliable substitute for the fallacies and hypocrisies, the cognitive and emotional mistakes, that Armantrout’s melancholy juxtapositions diagnose. Instead, the idea of a person with one nature, capable of sitting for a unique portrait, falls down when we try to make it explain “our nature,” to say why we do what we do.

    Armantrout’s poems work hard not to settle on stable answers to the questions they raise. Be true to yourself, be yourself, pursue your own nature: Armantrout’s friable phrases cast some suspicion on those all-American instructions, whether or not we can learn to live without them. Her memoir True (1997) sets her desire to escape her cliché-ridden blue-collar childhood against her own suspicion about the stories of artists’ escapes: “Somehow my life was leading me to the conclusion that received opinion was my enemy,” she writes, adding, “I’m afraid, now, that I’m making my own myth.” We may not be able to live without myths, but we should not let ourselves get trapped by them. Neither the myth of solidarity forever, nor the romance of the individual becoming herself at all costs, nor any heroic story of rebels defying old norms and creating great change in the arts, survives the careful scrutiny of Armantrout’s curt, melancholy, and chastened phrases, which ask instead how we can remain, or even become, the people that we think we are.
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  9. #112
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    PROSE FROM POETRY MAGAZINE
    Inky Binky Bonky
    How the words stick.

    BY WILLIAM BUTLER
    As far as the poetry I like, I sometimes feel like a cranky old man. I turn to old, formal poetry, or the super-famous poetry of the twentieth century—Eliot, Auden, Yeats, et al. I don’t think time is a distiller. Poems that emerge after passing through time are not necessarily more pure or more fundamentally true than the poems that disappear. But I do think that through the evolutionary dodgeball rounds of taste and fashion, population migrations, religious movements, library fires, world wars, and natural disasters, “being a good poem” is a trait that increases the odds of survival. I do sometimes read recent poetry, especially if it’s recommended by a friend. But I don’t have that many friends reading recent poetry.

    “Poetry I like” and “poetry that affects my life” are slightly different sets. The poetry important to me is random. Random in time period, topic, length, style, author, even quality. It’s not a question of liking or disliking—it’s just that there are bits embedded deep in my brain grooves.

    Sometimes this poetry comes out on specific occasions. I will be out on a walk and will round a corner, and the sun will be shining down in that golden hour before sunset, and a distant bird will loose a cry, and nature will confront me with all her majestic wonder. “What a strange bird is the pelican,” I will think, “Its beak can hold more than its belly can.” I always thought this was a couplet by Ogden Nash. But it’s a slightly wrong quotation from a limerick by some poet named Dixon Lanier Merritt. Regardless, I heard it when I was a kid, and ever since, all of nature has seemed a little ridiculous to me.

    Sometimes, though, an idyllic nature scene will raise deep unease. Or I’ll look out a hotel room window at a still city and get the willies. Occasional fear of silence is a fundamental human response. For me, this feeling is tied up with the phrase “As idle as a painted ship/Upon a painted ocean.” Which is a prelude, in the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, to everyone dying slowly of thirst, and slimy things coming out and crawling with legs upon a slimy sea. The pelican may be zany, but the Mariner’s albatross is a little terrifying.

    I once bought a book of Chinese poems because I liked the cover. (It was one of those seventies Penguin editions, not with the orange stripes, but with a beautiful wallpapery graphic.) I read this poem:

    In these days I am ever befuddled with wine,
    But it is not for nourishing my nature and soul.
    When I see that all men are drunk,
    How can I bear to be the only one sober?

    I don’t know a lick of Chinese, but that translation seems stiff. Still, whenever I start complaining in my head about how everyone in the world is crazy, I see this Chinese poet, Wang Ji, totally wasted and grabbing an American stranger by the arm fourteen centuries in the future. I don’t draw a moral from the poem—it just takes me out of myself, and that’s enough.

    When I was a kid, my dad paid me $7.50 for memorizing “If” by Rudyard Kipling. ($7.50 was the inflation-adjusted $1.00 my grandfather was paid by his father for the same task.) “If” is not attached deeply to my soul. I don’t turn to it in times of trouble. But I can still recite it as a party trick. (What sort of party? OK, you got me. There has never been a party where I have been asked to recite Kipling. Unless you count Thanksgiving as a party. Which it is. It is an awesome party.) But there is other Kipling. My dad’s parents would sing versions of his poems, like “The Ladies” (which has not aged well: “For she knifed me one night ’cause I wished she was white/And I learned about women from ’er!”) and “The Road to Mandalay”:

    By the old Moulmein Pagoda, lookin’ eastward to the sea,
    There’s a Burma girl a-settin’, and I know she thinks o’ me.

    “Mandalay” moves me. That lost actual paradise—I’m a sucker for nostalgia. My dad’s family is made up of sailors descended from sailors, and the devolution of the sea from the realm of freedom and mystery to a playground for rich sporty types is an ache I’ve inherited. Generally, I’ll shed a tear for any yearning poem that mentions the sea. Tennyson is good for that, too.

    I could list more. I haven’t yet got to George Herbert, or the poems of my impressionable teenage years. Or that epic of chance and loss:

    Inky binky bonky,
    Daddy had a donkey,
    Donkey died, Daddy cried,
    Inky binky bonky.

    Some of this poetry is carved in quick, deep cuts. There are poems I can’t help but remember. Some are like ghosts I hear mumbling (something important?) in the next room. I have to go to the page to summon them and shut them up. It’s a mysterious mechanism, how the words stick. It feels different to me than words and music, where so much of the mystery is bound up in the music itself. And it’s different from ideas I want to pass on, or stories I want to relate, in which the words fall however they fall. I’ve thought about it. I have no idea how the brain works.

    Originally Published: June 1, 2012
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  10. #113
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    W.S. Merwin: “Berryman”

    A poet revisits his legendary teacher’s advice.

    BY STEPHEN BURT
    What can one poet teach another, in person, that cannot be learned just by studying the poems? How can a poem on a page embody that live, one-time-only connection? If you don’t have to meet the poet—if all that matters are the poems—why do so many of us want to meet or take classes with poets?

    These questions of artistic mentorship are not new (the Victorian poet Robert Browning poked fun at them in his poem “Memorabilia”), but they have special salience for the generation of W.S. Merwin (born in 1927), the first cohort of American poets that could take poetry-writing classes in college and then go on to teach writing as a career. Though Merwin himself has rarely taught for a living, earning money as a translator, tutor, and professional writer instead, he has been surrounded by poets who did. His poem about what he learned from an early master sets literary celebrity against a more important, but ultimately unknowable, idea of literary value. It also presents a pedagogy separate from—maybe even superior to—whatever students can learn from assignments, for grades, in schools and colleges, even though the encounter that Merwin records took place in one of them.

    The poet John Berryman (1914–1972) was teaching at Princeton University when 17-year-old Merwin matriculated there in 1944. Berryman had already published poems in nationally prominent magazines, such as The Nation, but his first book, The Dispossessed, would not appear until 1948. Along with the critic and poet R.P. Blackmur, Berryman in those years launched Princeton’s creative writing program. Merwin remembered in 2010 that he discussed literature with Blackmur (“the wisest man and the greatest literary intelligence I ever knew”) but showed his own poems instead to Berryman, who “was absolutely ruthless. It was very good for me.”

    Perhaps the older poet saw Merwin’s potential. He described Merwin’s verse in kinder terms to others: Berryman’s then wife, Eileen Simpson, in her memoir, Poets in Their Youth (1982), remembers that Berryman “was particularly excited by the work of Frederick Buechner, who had shown him part of a novel, and by W.S. Merwin, who was writing poetry. Both of them were ‘the real thing.’”

    How do you know that a young poet is “the real thing” before you have seen many poems that you admire? How do you know, or transmit, the sense that a poet will write valuable poems before he has written them? You can’t “know” in the sense that you can know the square root of nine: you can only describe a feeling and try to give reasons for it. But you can’t “know” that any complete individual poem will last either: the unconfirmable feeling you can have about a person’s potential might differ only in degree from the feeling you can have about a poem, the inexplicable sense that something or someone will matter to someone else.

    As a teacher, Berryman seems to have communicated exactly that sense to his student, a knowledge that can be neither separated from craft nor reduced to craft: it feels more like a laying on of hands. The great man praised “presence” and “passion” and seemed to give Merwin both: Berryman also furnished both good and bad examples of how poets ought to live. But the most important gift he gave Merwin—so Merwin implies—was permission to live with what he could not know.

    Merwin won the Yale Younger Poets prize in 1952, but he became a name to conjure with later on, with The Lice (1967), whose spare free verse denounced the Vietnam War and contemplated the end of civilization. Merwin’s subsequent books often took the side of nonhuman nature, of silence, and of spiritual resistance against the busy, crowded, destructive, reckless work of human beings. The characteristic lack of punctuation in his poetry—he has used very little in 50 years—tends to give his poetry a kind of hushed seriousness and requires him to break many lines at the ends of phrases, clauses, and sentences because his line breaks can do the work of commas and periods. (Notice, in “Berryman,” the shock of the pause at “corner and he.”) That seriousness removes the poetry from the high formality of older styles but also from the sharp variety and interchange of ordinary conversation. Merwin’s lines, meditative and almost secluded, occupy a tonal space of their own.

    The style of Berryman’s most famous work now looks like the opposite of his former protégé’s: “Homage to Mistress Bradstreet” (1956) and The Dream Songs (1963, 1968) are gregarious, polyphonic, sometimes outrageous, well-populated poems. One is set in 17th-century New England, the others in Berryman’s own busy (and drunken) life, recording the vicissitudes of lust, hunger, shame, and regret in a way that seems almost amoral and never self-effacing. Yet Merwin implies that Berryman was somehow fundamental to the creation of Merwin’s style: how can this be?

    The answer lies not in Berryman’s poems but in the poet’s attitude toward the writing of them. Merwin sees Berryman not just as a teacher but also as close kin, thanks to their shared vocation. But can whatever wisdom Berryman offered, in person, by virtue of that kinship, be shared with us (“I will tell you,” Merwin writes), through the limited medium of the printed page?

    Merwin’s Berryman stands out not just for giving good advice (“why point out a thing twice”?) but also for the respectful way that he gave it. He acts out the passion he wants his poems to contain, or at least he says he does: “he / said he meant it literally,” but he did not leave the party, or stop the class, in order to kneel. Yet the advice is no joke: Merwin later said in an interview that “pray to the Muse” was “excellent advice.” (A few significant English-language poets have knelt to pray unpredictably in public, notably the 18th-century visionary Christopher Smart, who was put in a mental institution for it.)

    Merwin’s tender, almost embarrassed account of the great man, and the advice the man gave, makes poetry sound less like a craft (much less an academic discipline) than like a religious vocation. The wall, papered with rejection slips, resembles a monkish cell. Transmute remains the rarest word in a poem whose diction remains educated but unremarkable, and transmute points to alchemy, magic, discredited science; those processes, not scientific ones, correspond to the making of poetry, and the word passion, of course, has Christian religious roots as well.

    Berryman’s almost religious devotion to poetry might be mistaken for self-absorption: “he was deep / in tides of his own,” though these tides were not—Merwin has to add—the tides of the alcoholism that later carried him away. It would be easy to rewrite Merwin’s “Berryman” as the pretext for an insult: who is this young man with an “affected” accent, and what makes him so sure of himself? Where does he get off recommending, with such “vehemence,” clichés such as “movement and invention”? In Poets in Their Youth, Simpson confirms Merwin’s portrait of a man who was thinking of poetry all the time—to the neglect of his family. Yet Merwin’s poem works as homage, where it fails as advice: John Berryman “was certainly one of the two or three brightest individuals I’ve ever known,” Merwin said, “and his sense of language was passionate and had immense momentum. His integrity was absolute. He was a wacky man, but that devotion was like a pure flame all the time, and that was a great example for me.”

    The poem amounts to a sketch of an eccentric, his oddity visible even to his fingertips, a man few people could emulate directly. Berryman’s inimitability and charisma are not exactly the same thing as but rather stand in for and resemble the inimitability, the unpredictability, and the weirdness of poetic language itself. The shortest line in the poem—“you die without knowing”—is also one of the few one-line sentences, as is the memorable final line.

    Berryman’s good advice to the young Merwin also pushes back against the image of Berryman that we might get from Berryman’s own later poems. The critic David Haven Blake writes that those poems present Berryman as “a public figure, a poet characterized by fame,” a modern celebrity tracking and sometimes mocking Berryman’s own “confusion about the nature of literary fame.” For example, in “Dream Song 342,” Berryman reflects on evidence of his public success, such as “fan-mail from foreign countries,” “imitations & parodies in your own, / translations,” and other trappings of celebrity, before concluding that the quality, not the quantity, of readers’ attention is what matters: “A lone letter from a young man: that is fame.”

    Merwin’s poem is, in one sense, that letter. Merwin sets up his own early teacher as a figure beyond celebrity, a model for poetic integrity of the kind Merwin invites himself to seek. What looks like an unseemly preoccupation with poetic power and literary prominence is rewritten here as just the right kind of “arrogance,” a way to prevent worldly “vanity” by focusing on the art of poetry: an art of uncertain and unworldly rewards.

    The undergraduate Merwin wanted to know how to get an A in great poetry writing. He did not know any better than to ask, and he got the only possible answer. You can learn, for a grade, right answers to questions about how to read already existing poetry and how to hear it. As for the question of how to write poetry so that people remember it, how to write poetry that will “transmute” the language or itself wind up “transmuted” by “passion”—that question cannot be answered: “you can never be sure.” The lines end in a kind of proof by least likely case: if this learned, charismatic figure cannot be sure what makes a poem last, then no one can; and if that answer did not satisfy Merwin in his late teens, it might satisfy him now.

    That ability to live with uncertainty might be the most important of the many gifts—attention, seriousness, and charisma among them—that Berryman gave the young Merwin. “Poetry,” Merwin told an interviewer in 2014, “does not come from what you know. All that you know is very important, and not to be put down or ignored or got rid of, but finally it is from the unknown that poetry comes to you.” Knowing an author, taking a class, might help, but it is never a requirement. What you learn by meeting a great poet might just be how little the poet knows.
    ( That ability to live with uncertainty might be the most important of the many gifts—attention, seriousness, and charisma among them—that Berryman gave the young Merwin. “Poetry,” Merwin told an interviewer in 2014, “does not come from what you know. All that you know is very important, and not to be put down or ignored or got rid of, but finally it is from the unknown that poetry comes to you.” )

    True words, the poems most often come from an inner Spring that ones taps at will and the waters just flow. Of course often the waters need a bit more- like inspiration that the heart may add or imagination the mind may gift. Or that unknown essence that arrives just in time when stumped on how to continue a poem. -Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  11. #114
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    ARTICLES FOR TEACHERS & STUDENTS
    The Image List

    Starting with images rather than words can help show an experience, instead of telling it.

    BY MICHAEL MCGRIFF
    The Image List
    Image Courtesy of Chris Lott via Flickr.
    Whether you’re writing a poem for the first time in your life or working on your tenth award-winning book, starting a new poem is often an intimidating and daunting task. “What am I supposed to write about!?”—this is the question that often stops writers before they start. The exercise that follows, which I call the “Image List,” is one I’ve used in every class I’ve ever taught, from graduate-level courses to elementary school classes. It’s also a process that I use when I’m starting a new poem or feel as though I’ve run out of ideas.

    One thing: this is a timed exercise. It’s important to stick to the time limits because this writing exercise is based on the idea that your first thought might be your best thought.

    FIVE MINUTES

    In five minutes, make a list of at least fifty objects that are important to you. Remember, these are objects that are important to you—they don’t need to sound special or “poetic.” For example, your list might include things such as “the grass by our fence, Dad’s boots, the old woodstove in our living room,” to use a few examples from my own image list. There are no right or wrong objects to include on this list. Everyone is going to have a very different list containing a wide range of objects. The key to this exercise is to keep from overthinking—make a list of whatever comes to mind first. Keep your pen moving (or your fingers typing) until you’ve reached five minutes. Once you get started you’ll quickly see that you can generate far more than fifty objects.

    TEN MINUTES

    Now that you have these fifty objects in your mind, it’s time to make a second list. Take ten minutes to list the first twenty memories that you associate with the objects on your list. These memories don’t need to be elaborate; think of these as notes to yourself. Your list might look something like this:

    Visiting my mom in the hospital
    Noticing the way the rain sounded against my window the night I got in trouble with the cops
    Listening to Chopin for the first time
    And so on. Again, there is no right or wrong way to make this list. Everyone is going to have different memories. Some memories might be serious, some might be funny, and some might seem very ordinary. Again, the key to this list is to write down anything and everything that comes to mind. After all, there is no subject too ordinary, too outrageously funny, or too serious for a poem.

    FIVE MINUTES

    For the third and final list, select two memories from the list of memories you just made. For each memory, make a list of as many sensory details as you can think of. Remember, a sensory detail is a detail that pertains to how something looks, feels, tastes, sounds, or smells.

    Combine all three lists, and you have what I call an image list, a blueprint that contains everything you’ll need for making a poem. The image list is full of things you know, full of things you have a personal connection to, and full of sensory details. Just as important, the image list is devoid of abstractions and generalities. Abstractions and generalities can often feel vague, unconvincing, and unimportant to a reader, whereas the contents on the image list will feel personal, intimate, and convincing. The more a writer can show an experience, the more the reader will sympathize and understand it. The contents on the image list can be used to make a small poem, such as one of Buson’s great haiku, or a large, detail-stuffed epic such as Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass.

    To see how this exercise can be used, check out the following poems, each of which use the kinds of details and plain language that you’d find on an image list: “Things I Didn’t Know I Loved,” by Nâzim Hikmet; “Nostalgic Catalogue,” by Garrett Hongo; “Getting It Right,” by Matthew Dickman; “We Went Out to Make Hay,” by Stephan Torre; “To a Friend,” by Zubair Ahmed; and “Inventory” by Günter Eich.

    This essay was originally published in Open the Door: How to Excite Young People about Poetry (2013), a co-publication of the Poetry Foundation and McSweeney's Publishing, edited by Dorothea Lasky, Dominic Luxford, and Jesse Nathan.
    Originally Published: December 14, 2015
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  12. #115
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    ARTICLES FOR TEACHERS & STUDENTS
    Learning the Epistolary Poem
    Poems that serve as letters to the world

    BY HANNAH BROOKS-MOTL
    Learning the Epistolary Poem
    Paul Simpson
    It’s an old story: star-crossed lovers don’t know they’re star-crossed. They fall in love through the exchange of letters (or emails), not realizing that in real life they despise each other—until letter is matched to person and true love results (see the movie The Shop Around the Corner and its remake, You’ve Got Mail). Art that showcases epistolary practice—the writing and exchange of letters—comes stocked with such themes of romance, revelation, deception, and authenticity. Letters are vehicles for our truest selves, but they’re also a space in which we construct those selves.

    What does this have to do with epistolary poetry? Like our movie couples, poets use epistolary techniques to reveal and construct. On one hand, letters expose the fact that poetry itself is a form of communication. We frequently write to something or someone. On the other hand, poems that use the conventions of letters make us think about how we read, categorize, and imagine both letters and poems. Although our glossary’s definition of an epistle appears to be simple enough, its brevity belies crucial questions. Does the poem have to be an actual letter? If it was sent to a person—especially one “close to the writer”—what does it mean that other people are now reading it? If it wasn’t sent to a person, how does it count as a letter? Why write a poem that looks like a letter, or use a letter as a poem, anyway?

    Epistolary verse is one of poetry’s oldest forms, yet the questions it raises remain remarkably consistent through the centuries. In this guide, we’ll look at the history of epistolary poetry and explore how poets have adopted the form; you’ll also try your hand at composing some original-verse epistles.



    August Beginnings

    Some of the earliest epistolary poetry occurs in ancient Greece and Rome. Horace, in his Epistles, and Ovid, in the Heroides, set the terms for one of the epistolary debates that continues to this day: the distinction between epistles that appear to be true letters—written by the poet, ostensibly as a communiqué to an actual person—and epistles that are obviously fictional, perhaps because they’re written in a persona other than the poet’s. Both types are poems and letters, but the first might emphasize a poem’s letter qualities, while the second foregrounds the poem as a poem.

    Horace’s Epistles are the first kind: a series of poems written to real persons—fellow writers, patrons, and even Augustus, the Emperor himself. Since these are distinguished as epistles, we might assume that these poems were initially sent as letters. But their appearance, in 20 BCE, as a book suggests that they were open letters “sent” via publication itself. In David Ferry’s translation, the poems can begin with salutations—“Dear Fuscus, I, a lover of the country, / Send greetings to you, a lover of the city”—or start with the kinds of contextualization we associate with letters: “While you’re in Rome, studying declamation,” Horace writes to Lollius Maximus, “Here I am in Praeneste, reading Homer.” That kind of casual situating remark is a hallmark of epistolary poems. Horace uses such effects throughout the Epistles to achieve a meandering, digressive, and conversational style. These poems are chatty, ask questions, and make inside or private jokes. Here is the beginning of his letter to Vinius Asina:

    Just as I’ve told you over and over, Vinny,
    Deliver these books of mine to Augustus only
    If you know for sure that he’s in good health and only
    If you know for sure that he’s in a good mood and only
    If it comes about that he asks in person to see it.
    From the familiar form of Vinius’s name, to an expectation that Vinny will know Augustus’s “good mood” when he sees it, we can tell that Horace’s poem is clearly written to a specific, singular person. The poem reiterates a conversation between the two—“as I’ve told you over and over”—reinforcing the sense that we are intercepting a letter intended for someone else. The poem’s qualities as both letter and poem are tied up in its casual style and authentic address. And this brings us to our first writing exercise:

    Exercise 1: Try writing a poem that enacts a similar experience for the reader. Write about a past event to a friend, and frame it as a private letter in which you explain your side of what happened. Keep in mind that others will end up reading your “letter.” How does knowledge of a larger audience affect your letter-poem?

    Horace’s poem to Vinny is the kind of “true” letter-poem to which Ovid’s Heroides stands in opposition. The Heroides are a collection of letters written in the voices of women from classical mythology. They’re not real letters, but fictional letters written using the technique of persona. Addressed mainly to absent lovers, the letter-poems exemplify another truism of epistolary practice: that letters are outpourings of our innermost selves. Ovid’s letter-writers beg, cajole, mourn, and indict the men who have abandoned them. But Ovid also gives the women recourse to introspection.

    Exercise 2: Try writing a letter from someone else’s perspective, perhaps a famous person or a literary or mythical character. Have your character write to someone they’re angry or upset with and explain why.



    Ladies, Letters, the 18th Century

    The 18th century was an epistolary heyday. A regular mail service and newly literate masses encouraged writers to adopt the conventions of letters in many genres, from political treatises to a newfangled form called the novel. Aspects of epistolarity—salutations, dating, and address to a specific person—mark much poetry of the 18th century, not all of which we’d call verse epistles. Odes and occasional poems, for example, also tend to address a person directly. But as the category of epistolary poetry expanded, the distinction between true and fictional epistles remained. Alexander Pope exploited the possibilities of the latter in “Eloisa to Abelard,”one of the most famous verse epistles of the period. The poem, like Ovid’s Heroides before it, purports to be an outpouring of impassioned speech from one lover to another. Eloisa writes to Abelard:

    Yet write, oh write me all, that I may join
    Griefs to thy griefs, and echo sighs to thine.
    Abelard and Eloisa are “joined” despite distance through letters. Correspondence might allow them to literally correspond, in a kind of emotional echo. Of course, the reality is that Eloisa is in a convent; Abelard is, well, no longer the man he once was; and Pope is the real author of the poem. Epistolary writing in the 18th century frequently remarked on its own limitations, even as letters and letter-poems imagined they might overcome them. It’s a theme that runs throughout epistolary writing: you’re absent, but also present, because I’m writing to you.

    Exercise 3: Take out your cell phone and find a contact you haven’t talked to in six months or more. Now, write him or her a letter-poem describing how you feel about the silence between the two of you.

    Pope’s other verse epistles are less fervent than “Eloisa to Abelard,” and yet might strike us as just as “fictive.” His poem “Epistle to Miss Blount” and the series “Epistles to Several Persons” are clearly labeled as letters, but sound like traditional poems (or even criticism, in the case of “An Essay”). Unlike Horace, Pope valued epistolary poetry not for its ability to mimic conversation, but for the particular kinds of decorum it permitted. As Ange Mlinko has pointed out in a poem guide to “The Answer,” an epistolary poem by Anne Finch that responds to Pope’s “The Rape of the Lock,”poets of the 18th century—another Augustan age—wrote to amuse, provoke, and persuade friends and foes in their immediate circles, almost like an older, slower, and more formal version of today’s social media.

    Mlinko’s guide focuses on female poets, and women and epistolary writing have always been linked. Yet 18th-century female poets’ use of epistolary verse can call into question those categories of true and fictional—whether a poem was intended as a poem or a letter. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s letter to Lord Herveyis a good example of the blurred boundaries between letters and poems in the period. As scholar Bill Overton points out, “epistolary verse was a social practice of the period, and … especially for upper-class women, the writing of a letter in verse by no means entailed an intention to publish it."Yet even unpublished poems and letters were circulated, and it is likely that letter writers in the 18th century understood that their words would be read and reread by people they might not know personally.

    Epistolary scholars call this sense that a letter is written not just for its recipient, but for a potentially wider audience, the “third-person reader.” It’s especially useful in thinking about verse epistles because letter-poets acknowledge that their missive is at once public and private. For female poets writing in a time when normal modes of publishing were difficult or undesirable, this third-person reader was often their first and only reader. Anne Finch’s “A Letter to Daphnis” is a good example of this interplay. Lady Mary Chudleigh’s verse epistle addresses itself explicitly “To the Ladies,” but it uses epistolary style in title only—the poem forgoes greetings or situating remarks in favor of pure polemic.

    Exercise 4: Try writing an epistle to an entire group of people. As in your Horace imitation, think about how the sense of a third-person reader might shape what, and how, you write.



    New-Fashioned Epistolary Verses

    The distinction between true and fictional continues to mark epistolary poetry to this day. Poems such as Ezra Pound’s “The River-Merchant’s Wife: A Letter” are obviously in the tradition of Ovid. More contemporary examples of this kind of letter-poem include Evie Shockley’s “From the Lost Letters of Frederick Douglass,” Carolyn Kizer’s “Fanny,” and William Stafford’s “Report to Crazy Horse.” Such poems are related to the dramatic monologue in their reliance on readers’ suspension of disbelief.

    While all letter-writers consciously construct a version of themselves in their letters, letter-poems from a persona might strike us differently than those from a “real” poet. And letter-poems intended, as Horace’s were, for actual friends and acquaintances of the poet seem unlike those letter-poems, such as Julia Bloch’s Letters to Kelly Clarksonor Major Jackson’s “Letter to Brooks: Spring Garden,” obviously written as poems first. The question is as old as Horace and Ovid, Pope and Montagu: letter or poem? And why?

    Emily Dickinson might help us here. Dickinson’s publication history is long and tangled, but scholars have started to emphasize the importance of epistolary practice to her work; recent editions even try to recover the way poems were knit into, and seemed to spring from, her letters. Her letters and poems circulated—like Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, she wrote to a public-private audience—but Dickinson used her missives both to communicate and to describe communication’s difficulty. Dickinson’s “letter lyrics,” in the words of scholar Sarah Hewitt, “theorize poetry as a specific kind of social communication.”

    Poetry, especially lyric poetry, was not thought to be especially communicative after Romanticism. So when Jack Spicer published letters as poems, as he did with “Letter to Gary Bottone” and “Letters to James Alexander,”he upended such notions, placing a poem squarely between people. James Schuyler’s letter-poems do similar work. Often embracing epistolary embellishments such as dates, greetings, and sign-offs, Schuyler’s poems frequently use the kind of patter real letters feature. Yet the poem “A Stone Knife”also includes a title, lineation, and extended ekphrasis, common telltale markers of poetry. Letter-poems by Schuyler or Spicer can complicate our automatic categories of what is or isn’t poetry.

    Exercise 5: Find an email or letter you’ve written, and break it into lines. Does it sound or feel like a poem? Try adding a title.

    Letters and letter-poems also help us think about how poetry is built—and again, it’s a blow to any notions of a visit from the muses. Lorine Niedecker and W.S. Graham both used letters to write poems, suggesting that a poem is less an inspired rush of language than the careful placement and arrangement of words. Here is Niedecker in a letter to Louis Zukofsky from 1948:

    Dear Zu:

    Saturday I arose from my primordial mud with bits of algae, equisetum, etc . . to attend an expensive church wedding. Whole of history went thru my head, a big step from algae to CHURCH […] from cell division to the male sweating it out while the other collects International Sterling Silver and dons and takes off satins and continues to sweat to pay for ’em. The little slave girl bride and the worse slave, her husband.

    Compare this to Niedecker’s “I rose from marsh mud.” Niedecker doesn’t just raid her letter’s content for her poem’s purposes, she cribs actual phrases and words. Graham does something similar in his letter-elegy to his friend titled “Dear Bryan Wynter.”In that poem, Graham repurposes phrases from letters he sent to friends and Wynter’s widow. Both Niedecker and Graham take language from letters and tweak it for poems.

    Exercise 6: Look at the letter or email you used in Exercise 5. Can you find phrases and even sentences that you might incorporate into your next poem?

    Contemporary poets who use epistolary forms can also let language remain in its “lettered” state. During her third pregnancy, Bernadette Mayer wrote a series of letters. Never sent, they were published as The Desire of Mothers to Please Others in Letters (1994). Here is the opening of “To the Tune of ‘Red Embroidered Shoes’”:

    It’s a rare windy day where the sun never goes away, some new weather must be moving toward us very fast as they say, you always say I notice the weather too much, that most people don’t know if it’s hot or cold, I find it hard to remember I’m not supposed to have to include it all. I think to myself I’ve gotta say that to you and then when I forget it it’s lost. To celebrate without a plan—will he buy her an ice cream on the way home?

    Mayer’s long, fast sentences move us through a dizzying range of observation. The allusions are private and opaque, and the speed with which Mayer delivers them almost guarantees that our understanding is only partial. Yet Mayer wrote this letter not to send but to publish, as a prose poem. Like Spicer and Schuyler, Mayer explores the boundaries between letters and poems and our expectations of each.

    One thing we expect of poems is that they stand alone: we shouldn’t have to know context or background to understand a poem. Poems should contain their own directions, allow us to assemble and read them on their own terms. But we know that letters are only products of context. They are part of endless chains of other letters and communications, and when we read them we can be comfortable and even delight in our only partial knowledge. From Horace and Ovid to Mayer and Spicer, poets have used letter-poems to explore not just the ways letters help poets write, but how letter-poems force readers to read.

    Epistolary poetry also focuses our attention on the audience (the “to whom”) of poetry rather than its subjects and meanings (the “what”). And since we’re reading a poem not initially intended for “us,” one thing letter-poems ask is that we consider how we are, and are not, like the real people they’re addressed to. Poets who use epistolary address also attempt to figure out not just who that “you” is—whether it’s a close friend or all posterity—but what, and how to meaningfully communicate with them. It’s a question poets have been asking themselves since writing, and letters, appeared.

    Originally Published: August 29, 2013
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  13. #116
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default



    PROSE FROM POETRY MAGAZINE
    The Necessary Fluster
    On the art of finding.

    BY NAOMI BECKWITH

    Though I do not have a “favorite” of many things, I do have a favorite poem: Elizabeth Bishop’s “One Art.” Its words on loss are so even-keeled for five stanzas that I immediately became a devotee of its matronly, metaphysical advice. But suddenly, in the sixth stanza, the poem cracks open, leaking vulnerability. I love the poem for its timeless subject, its progression, and especially for its title, which I consider a pun on my own professional interests as a curator. When I mentioned this to an English professor friend, he commanded I recite “One Art” like a pop quiz. I consented and got through four lines until my friend interrupted me—“Elizabeth Bishop would never use the word fluster.” An argument ensued, Google was consulted, and eventually I was vindicated.

    Our argument was essentially an academic one about Bishop’s practice, but it mirrored ongoing debates about what type of language and forms are appropriate for poetry. In this case “fluster” was common, colloquial, too close to slang, and, for my friend, inconsistent with Bishop’s lyricism. It’s as if poetry’s only function were embellished erudition.

    My own notions about what constitutes poetry veer toward the decorative as well, but when I think back on the poetry that first grabbed my imagination—“We real cool. We/Left school”—its diction was akin to slang. The monosyllabic words, the idiosyncratic meter, the creative verbs (to “Jazz June”?): these weren’t simple aesthetic choices for Gwendolyn Brooks, they were linguistic portraits. Like Brooks, I lived for much of my life on the South Side of Chicago. The familiarity of her cadences primed my young mind for poetry.

    The familiar or colloquial isn’t base but inspirational—and, I would argue, necessary. Over one hundred years prior to “The Pool Players,” Charles Baudelaire stated that art must find its inspiration in the urban street, in the everyday, in the nineteenth-century version of the pool hall. Baudelaire was known as much as an art critic as a poet, and his ideas helped engender the cultural shift from the Romantic age into modernism.
    Visual art and poetry have continued along separate aesthetic tracks, but I often return to poetry when I think about contemporary visual art. For instance, Kenneth Goldsmith’s concept of uncreative writing: Goldsmith—a true heir of Baudelaire’s dandyism—advocates for the wholesale borrowing or repurposing of language from any source rather than creating “new” text. It is a radical notion in a world saturated with cliches and nostalgic references. Goldsmith’s view is about making lateral moves rather than justifying what language is appropriate for poetry. It’s a vision of language that accepts “fluster.”

    I also see Goldsmith’s ideas in direct conversation with visual art’s notion of the “found object.” An artist utilizing appropriation or a found object forces her audience to look anew—and critically—at the world. Artists and poets who do this go beyond style to pose conceptual questions: what does it mean, like Brooks or Baudelaire, to engage directly with the world surrounding you rather than looking toward the academy? How do you take advantage of the familiar while making it unfamiliar and surprising? These questions are now my guiding principles as I consider contemporary art.

    Originally Published: June 1, 2012
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  14. #117
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    Warning some graphic/vulgar language in the article.--Tyr
    PROSE FROM POETRY MAGAZINE
    All My Pretty Hates
    Reconsidering Charles Baudelaire.

    BY DAISY FRIED
    I’m writing this in Paris, so, from my many poetic aversions (“all my pretty hates,” to quote Dorothy Parker): Charles Baudelaire, oozing with decay, pestilence, and death. Baudelaire, tireless invoker of  muses, classical figures, goddesses, personifications: O Nature!...Cybele!... 
Sisyphe ... O muse de mon coeur! Baudelaire, who makes an old perfume bottle an invocation of the soul wherein

    A thousand thoughts were sleeping, deathly chrysalids,
    trembling gently in the heavy darkness,
    which now unfold their wings and take flight,
    tinged with azure, glazed with pink, shot with gold*
    — From The Phial

    Anyone ever counted how many times “azure” shows up in Les Fleurs du Mal?

    When she had sucked all the marrow from my bones
    And I languidly turned to her
    To give back an amorous kiss, I saw no more.
    She seemed a gluey wine-skin full of pus.
    — The Vampire’s Metamorphosis

    I’m not one to criticize poems about blowjobs but Really, Charles? My fourteen-year-old self might have been impressed. Ew, gross. Then again, shouldn’t one be aware of not reading through one’s fourteen-year-old eyes? After all, he and Poe invented poetic goth. It’s not Baudelaire’s fault his modern-day followers are goofballs. And not their fault I’m a boring middle-aged American.

    The main trouble is that English is a mash-up of Anglo-Saxon, Latin, and other languages, while French, like all romance languages, is more purely Latinate. I think, feel, imagine, and dream in twentieth-century English. Different associations and emotions attach to Latinate versus Anglo-Saxon synonyms. Latinate words seem inflated and emotionless; Anglo-Saxon alternatives are, for me, concrete, emotional, complex. I can stumble along in Baudelaire’s French, and know enough of the language to argue with translators. Carol Clark turns “L’Art est long et le Temps est court” (“Le Guignon”) into “Art is long and Time is fleeting.” Why not the sonically similar “short”? She makes Cybele’s “tétines brunes” in the untitled third poem of Les Fleurs du Mal literary and Eliotish — “brown dugs” — 
instead of “brown tits.”

    In “The Venal Muse,” Baudelaire describes the muse of his heart, a lover of palaces, warming her frozen purple feet during the “noirs ennuis” (black boredom) of snowy evenings. Next he asks her: “Récolteras-tu l’or des voûtes azurées?” Azure again. Carol Clark translates this line: “Will you gather gold from the vaults of heaven,” leaving out the explicit sky color and adding a religious whiff with “heaven.” But even in more literal translation, “Will you reap gold from the azure vaults,” thud goes the poem. Of course, this poem’s interest and innovation is partly structural: the thrill ride from register to register, palaces to purple feet to sky blue vaults. Baudelaire conformed to many of the straitjacket conventions of nineteenth-century French poetry: strict syllabics, indefatigable personifications, classical references. In her excellent introduction, Clark explains that his wedging of the hideous, erotic body into those strictures was radical. And yet: gold, azure, vaults — I just don’t like this poem’s escape into the windy figurative.

    But. As I reread and edge closer to feeling the French late in my two-month Paris trip, I start to find Baudelaire... lovable. Not only that, but a good model. In the Cybele poem quoted above, Baudelaire imagines a lost arcadia, “époques nues” when men and women “jouissaient sans mensonge et sans anxiété.” Jouissaient: 
“enjoyed each other”  — fucked, presumably — “without lying or 
anxiety.” Sentimental? Maybe. But then he contrasts that dream-age to modern diseased, debauched nineteenth-centry women:

    And you, women, alas, pale as church candles, fed and gnawed away by debauchery, and you, virgins, dragging along the inheritance of your mothers’ vice and all the hideous appurtenances of fecundity! (Clark)

    Never mind that “hideous appurtenances of fecundity.” Finally, the disgust is glorious, vivid, diagnostic. Objections to sexism in this passage are anachronistic; Baudelaire’s always most revolted by himself.
We in America could use more romantic self-disgust. (Frederick Seidel thinks so. Ooga Booga is the Fleurs du Mal of our time.)

    Or take the great poem “Le Cygne” (“The Swan”) in which Baudelaire compares drastically-changing Paris of  the mid-nineteenth century to a swan escaped from its cage, rubbing webbed feet on dry pavement, dragging plumage on rough ground, opening its beak near a dry gutter, bathing wings in dust, dreaming of  home, a beautiful lake, and of water, water. Look up the original. There’s seldom been in 
poetry anything so terribly dry and so full of yearning.

    In “The Swan,” Baudelaire invokes Andromache several times. Elsewhere his classical references can seem perfunctory. Here, Hector’s widow injects, finally, an enormous sorrow into the poem, and provides a segue near the end to a strange, and strangely relevant, intrusion:

    I think of the negress, wasted and consumptive, trampling in
    the mud and looking with wild eyes for the missing coconut
    palms of proud Africa behind the immense wall of the fog;
    Of whoever has lost what can never be found. (Clark)

    It’s true, Baudelaire can be awfully windy. But I apologize to my 
editors. I’ve developed an aversion to my aversion. If that’s wind, well, sometimes you have to listen to the wind.



    * This and some other translations are prose ones by Carol Clark, from Penguin’s Selected Poems, hereafter designated “(Clark).” Where I make no citation, I’ve cobbled together versions from Google Translate, Clark, and other translators, with apologies and no blame.

    Originally Published: January 2, 2013
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  15. #118
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    ESSAY
    Immortal Beloved
    On the missing persons of love poetry.
    BY AUSTIN ALLEN

    Immortalizing the beloved is supposed to be one of the poet’s supreme powers. What journal-toting teenager hasn’t tried to wield it? Shakespeare himself claims in his sonnets:

    So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
    So long lives this, and this gives life to thee. (XVIII)

    Not marble, nor the gilded monuments
    Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme;
    But you shall shine more bright in these contents
    Than unswept stone, besmear’d with sluttish time. (LV)
    There’s no disputing these lines as boasts of literary prowess. The sonnets are monuments; they’ll outlast us all. But are they truly personalized? Who is “thee”?

    Scholars have never identified the “Fair Youth” Shakespeare celebrated; he may have been a lover, friend, patron, or fantasy. Two earls, William Herbert and Henry Wriothesley, are leading suspects, but no one has clinched the case for either, and both are unknown outside of English departments.

    Of course, the sonnets promise to keep alive a spirit, not a name. But who is the Youth in spirit? We learn little about his temperament, his quirks, the mind behind the handsome face. Despite all the flattering tributes, he eludes us—as does that other specter of the sonnets, the “Dark Lady.” In what sense, then, does the poet give them life? More convincing is the claim, in Sonnet LV, that “your praise shall still find room / Even in the eyes of all posterity”—emphasis mine, praise Shakespeare’s.

    Like so many love poems before and since, the sonnets whisper, “I’m gonna make you a star, kid.” So why do we remember only the starmaker? Whose fame are we really talking about here?



    “How I envy the novelist!” Sylvia Plath wrote in her 1962 essay “A Comparison,” without mentioning that she was turning into one herself. The previous summer, she had finished her first, headlong draft of The Bell Jar, which she would publish (under the alter ego Victoria Lucas) in the winter of ’63. The private agonies she poured into that novel are well known, but her essay reveals the artistic impulse behind her foray into fiction. Casting the novelist as a spoiled rival, she exclaims:

    To her, this fortunate one, what is there that isn’t relevant! [In a novel] old shoes can be used, doorknobs, air letters, flannel nightgowns, cathedrals, nail varnish, jet planes, rose arbors and budgerigars; little mannerisms … any weird or warty or fine or despicable thing. Not to mention emotions, motivations—those rumbling, thunderous shapes.
    The surprise comes in that last sentence. Yes, novels accommodate more lavish variety and miscellaneous detail, but aren’t emotions just as “relevant” to poems? Plath seems to mean that poets can’t depict emotion with the novel’s sprawling complexity; working on smaller canvases, they’re confined to fewer and proportionately broader brushstrokes.

    Emotions, motivations, accessories, “little mannerisms”—these are the things characters are made of. One of Plath’s implicit fears is that poetry lacks what E. M. Forster called “round characters”: three-dimensional human presences. Where the novel gives people “leisure to grow and alter before our eyes,” poems restrict them to stagy lyric moments, discarding much of their everyday baggage in the process. Plath confesses with regret: “I have never put a toothbrush in a poem.”

    In fact, these general distinctions have stark, specific relevance to Plath’s own work. In Ariel, emotions are not just broad but operatic. People are more than types; they’re mythic heroes and monsters. Her father is a Fascist; her mother is Medusa; Ted Hughes, her wayward husband and fellow poet, is a vampire (in “Daddy”); she herself is the avenging “Lady Lazarus.” It’s brilliant psychodrama, but it helps explain why Plath sought refuge in the novel. As the poems’ hellish atmosphere thickens, it kills off large tracts of normal human experience. Vampires don’t even use toothbrushes. Neither do resurrected spirits who “eat men like air.”

    Hughes’s own portrayal of the marriage, the 1998 collection Birthday Letters, demonstrates Plath’s point from another angle. The best Hughes poems are as efficiently compact as a naturalist’s rucksack, but Hughes fills this late volume with so many “poetical toothbrushes”—so much descriptive trivia, labored psychologizing, and embroidery on Plath’s myths—that it bulges and drags. (Do we need to know the prices of both the “walnut desk” and the “Victorian chair” in the home he shared with Plath? Does having her stamp on her father’s coffin “like Rumpelstiltskin” add anything to the original image in “Daddy”?) For all his earnest effort, Hughes never evokes Plath as sharply as he’d described a hawk some forty years earlier: “There is no sophistry in my body, / My manners are tearing off heads.”

    And so this great literary power couple—in life, a notoriously charismatic pair—leaves us feeling that their poems never quite captured each other. To view their marriage in three dimensions we need to consult Plath’s overflowing journals, or the endless biographies for which their fans continue to thirst. Partly this is due to their particular sensibilities and Plath’s early death. But I’m tempted, like Plath, to seek part of the reason in poetry itself.



    There are always motives for discretion in writing about a lover. Sometimes, too, there’s a coy thrill in opening the curtain only halfway. When Robert Browning, at the end of Men and Women, drops his dramatis personae and addresses his poet-wife directly, he delights in the true selves they’ve concealed from the reading public:

    God be thanked, the meanest of His creatures
    Boasts two soul-sides, one to face the world with,
    One to show a woman when he loves her.

    … but think of you, Love!
    This to you—yourself my moon of poets!
    Ah, but that’s the world’s side, there’s the wonder,
    Thus they see you, praise you, think they know you!
    But coyness isn’t the exclusive province of poets, and discretion isn’t the heart of the Shakespearean promise. The promise is to “give life to thee.” Why, then, does poetry so rarely capture a lover in three dimensions?

    Plath would blame space constraints (“so little room! So little time!”), but these can’t be the whole story. Average poem length aside, nothing prevents a poetry collection from covering as much ground as a novel.

    A likelier culprit is the lyric genre, which has dominated English poetry at least since the Romantics. More than narrative, lyric encourages a fixed inward gaze. Critic Heather Dubrow sums up the usual divide in The Challenges of Orpheus: “lyric is static and narrative committed to change, lyric is internalized whereas narrative evokes an externally realized situation, lyric attempts to impede the forward thrust of narrative, and so on.” This chimes with Plath’s point about people “grow[ing] and alter[ing]” in novels but not in poems. Dubrow goes on to argue, however, that these distinctions are flimsy and that Modernism made a virtue of ignoring them.

    If Joyce and Woolf could import lyric techniques wholesale into the novel, nothing prevents poets from accomplishing the reverse. And, in fact, recent decades have seen a minor vogue for “verse novels,” including such distinguished love-and-heartbreak sagas as Robert Lowell’s The Dolphin, Rita Dove’s Thomas and Beulah, Anne Carson’s Autobiography of Red and The Beauty of the Husband, and Louise Glück’s Meadowlands. Each of these books offers an original fusion of narrative and lyric. Their other merits aside, those that venture farthest outside the lyric “I”—especially Thomas and Beulah and Autobiography—seem to me most successful in creating full-fledged characters. (Dove’s chronicle of a marriage, loosely based on her grandparents’, has been staged as an opera; Carson’s Geryon and Herakles won enough fans that she revived them in a sort of sequel.) By contrast, Lowell’s deeply personal Dolphin, which caused a scandal by quoting from his ex-wife’s letters, seems to chafe against the lyric’s limits in representing others’ perspectives. (I suspect Lowell shared Plath’s novelist envy: “The ideal modern form seems to be the novel,” he once mused.)

    In any case, projects like these remain anomalies. If I started listing novels that plumb the depths of their authors’ marriages, I could fill this whole essay. Yet when you look at the great sequences of English love poetry, you find that they overwhelmingly portray wanting or missing, not shared experience. In other words, they thrive on isolation.

    The “wanting” group, of which Sappho is the godmother, includes everything from Petrarch’s and Shakespeare’s sonnets to Dickinson’s lovelorn ballads to Yeats’s lifelong poetic courtship of Maud Gonne. The “missing” group includes breakup sequences (as in Ariel) and countless studies in grief: I think immediately of Thomas Hardy’s elegies for his wife Emma, Jack Gilbert’s for Michiko Nogami, Donald Hall’s for Jane Kenyon (Without, The Painted Bed), and Gjertrud Schnackenberg’s for Robert Nozick (Heavenly Questions). Karen Green’s recent Bough Down (a collection of prose poems centered on the suicide of her husband, David Foster Wallace) falls into the same category, as does that Victorian epic of sorrow, Tennyson’s In Memoriam A.H.H.

    These disparate works share a tendency to foreground the poet’s emotions while lending the beloved—the distant or departed one—a tinge of unreality. David Foster Wallace’s famous claim that “every love story is a ghost story” seems to me even truer of poetry than fiction. Petrarch projects his fantasies onto a woman he barely knows. Dickinson’s “Master” goes virtually undescribed and remains unidentified (candidates include her sister-in-law, a minister, and God). Yeats’s love poems are one of the great literary labors ever devoted to a single person; they’re also a profound evasion. His Gonne is Helen of Troy, the spirit of Ireland, an embodiment of radicalism, or simply the Unattainable—but rarely the busy, idealistic woman we meet in her correspondence.

    Elegiac sequences are even more apt to turn lovers into phantoms, conjured only through a few devastating details: Arthur Hallam’s “hand that can be clasp’d no more” (In Memoriam), Emma Hardy’s “original air-blue dress” (“The Voice”), the long black hair Gilbert finds in the dirt (“Married”). Hall weaves the voice of his late wife, Jane Kenyon, in with his own, but his most powerful tributes to her, such as “Kill the Day,” are terrifyingly lonely:

    When she died, at first an outline of absence defined
    the presence that disappeared. He yowled for the body
    he could no longer reach out to touch in bed on waking.
    He yowled for her silver thimble. He yowled when the dog
    brought him a white slipper that smelled of her still.
    In the second summer, her pheromones diminished.
    The negative space of her body dwindled as she receded…
    And yet these visceral traces, however “diminished,” announce what Hall’s insistent negations ironically affirm: the staying power of the departed.

    In his prose “Appreciation” of Hall, Louis Begley says of the short, erotic poems mixed into the Kenyon cycle: “They are not about Kenyon, which magnifies their effect.” I see what he means, but I can’t quite agree with the first half of this, just as I’d hesitate to claim full-stop that the elegies are about her. So much of their impact derives from trapping us inside Hall’s mind, where Kenyon is both constant absence and constant presence. The love lyric is diabolically good at springing traps like these.



    Temperament might be a factor: poetry is a solitary art, and its icons have inspired jokes about self-absorption since Wordsworth and the “egotistical sublime.” But even a “people poet” like Frank O’Hara—famed for gregariousness, loyalty, and warmth—turns love on the page into an oddly one-sided affair.

    How much do we learn about the exalted “You” in “Having a Coke With You”? Comically little: he’s wearing an orange shirt, and he likes yogurt. As for his chemistry with O’Hara,

    in the warm New York 4 o’clock light we are drifting back and forth
    between each other like a tree breathing through its spectacles
    Like a tree breathing through its spectacles, this clears nothing up. So it goes with O’Hara: he fills his poems with friends, lovers, love interests—the roles blur together—yet he rarely enters their heads or describes them to the point where they upstage him. (“You” was the dancer Vincent Warren, who also inspired numerous other O’Hara love lyrics; but this fact tends to get lost in the poems’ giddy jumble of names, sights, and happenings.)

    Look closely at O’Hara’s definition of “Personism,” the movement that started as a joke with Amiri Baraka but that is now beloved in its own right: “It does not have to do with personality or intimacy, far from it! ... It puts the poem squarely between the poet and the person, Lucky Pierre style, and the poem is correspondingly gratified. The poem is at last between two persons instead of two pages.” The poem gets the best of this three-way; it’s a close intermediary, not closeness itself.

    Still, “intimacy” isn’t really banished: “persons” are vital to the action, and the fun. For O’Hara, just getting someone on the page is a joyous gesture, a benediction to be conferred far and wide. In that sense, most of his Lunch Poems are authentic love poems. And knowing how hard it is—how exposing—to write anything at all about our close attachments, we might bring some of his generosity to our judgments of love poetry in general. We might even turn Plath’s envy of novelists on its ear.



    When you want or miss someone badly, the world contracts. Everything that isn’t the loved one irritates you with its irrelevance. The plot arc of your life coils into a vicious loop. Here is Hall again:

    There is nothing so selfish as misery nor so boring,
    and depression is devoted only to its own practice.
    Mourning resembles melancholia precisely except 

    that melancholy adds self-loathing to stuporous sorrow. …
    The grim truth of these lines contains one saving glimmer of contradiction. Hall’s “selfish” misery has found an outlet: poetry. True, it’s a small and tightly focused outlet—but at this stage of grief, anything more would seem almost profane.

    For writers struggling in these waters, even the handiest narrative tools—plot, setting, characterization—can feel like dead weight. The lyric allows us to grab them only as needed, or ditch them altogether. Along with relief there can be a purity to this unburdening.

    In “Left Behind,” her fine essay on the poetry of grief, Joy Katz celebrates poems that “open up the isolating process of mourning” by “translat[ing] sorrow through poetic form.” She means primarily that such poems refuse false epiphanies and closure, but she also touches on the way they resist fully characterizing the dead. She praises, for example, a Mary Szybist poem in which a ghostly girl “hovers in the uncomfortable place between metaphor and reality.”

    This description fits nearly all the lovers, living and dead, in the sequences I’ve mentioned. In another Anne Carson book, her critical study Eros the Bittersweet, she proposes that “Eros… folds the beloved object out of sight into a mystery, into a blind point where it can float known and unknown.” Death enforces a more extreme version of the same separation. The lyric reflects this—and reflects the mystery back onto the lyric “I.”

    The sonnets may seem like the closest thing we have to unfiltered Shakespeare, but they’re maddeningly short on autobiographical specifics. No one has ever disproved the theory that they’re all an artifice, another masquerade to join his suite of plays. Similarly, Dickinson mythologizes herself along with the “You” she “cannot live with,” spinning a Calvinist, yet blasphemous narrative of savior and saved. Hall in “Kill the Day” distances himself into a case study, recording his psychological flux with unbearable precision while noting biography only in shorthand. In Section LXIX of In Memoriam, Tennyson dreams an allegorical angel who may or may not be the transformed Arthur Hallam:

    … I found an angel of the night;

    The voice was low, the look was bright;

    He look’d upon my crown and smiled:



    He reach’d the glory of a hand,

    That seem’d to touch it into leaf:

    The voice was not the voice of grief,

    The words were hard to understand.
    Notice that the visitation turns Tennyson himself into a crowned, prophetic witness.

    Such guises might wear out over the course of a realist novel, but in the lyric they open a broad space for reader projection. (What lover has ever struggled to “identify with” a Shakespearean sonnet?) They also capture the self-estrangement of infatuation and grief—the sense that all of this is happening to someone else; that the dead will soon return or the desired accept us, relieving us of the burdens of role-playing. At the same time, they provide their authors a brief respite from the burden of the self. (Recall T. S. Eliot’s line in “Tradition and the Individual Talent” about art as an escape from “personality and emotions”—at least for those who “know what it means to want to escape from these things.”)

    The resulting poems may not eliminate pain, but they can, in a real sense, transcend it. Despite my nagging curiosity, I’m satisfied in the end by the way Shakespeare’s sonnets anonymize their subjects—by the way they float free of any context at all. Scholars aren’t sure Shakespeare ever intended them to be published, let alone dedicated to a particular lover. Forged in the full heat of want, they became the most casual of monuments.
    Originally Published: January 26, 2016
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  16. #119
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    ESSAY ON POETIC THEORY
    Expressive Language (1963)
    BY AMIRI BARAKA


    INTRODUCTION
    Poet and political activist Amiri Baraka first published as LeRoi Jones in the 1950s as a member of the Beat poetry movement. Baraka’s 1959 visit to Cuba, where he encountered a group of politically active writers, and his involvement in the burgeoning civil rights movement led him to move to Harlem in the 1960s, where he became a black nationalist and founded the Black Arts Movement.

    Baraka’s essay “Expressive Language” first appeared in Kulchur in the winter of 1963, and was published in his collection Home: Social Essays (1966). The book grounds Baraka’s creative work in a commitment to defining and promoting a black aesthetic, which critic Houston Baker defines as “a distinctive code for the creation and evaluation of black art.” Asserting that “words’ meanings, but also the rhythm and syntax that frame and propel their concatenation, seek their culture as the final reference for what they are describing of the world,” Baraka argues that the artist must use the language and semantics unique to his culture to create his art, and that the work should also be understood within the context of that culture.

    While Baraka’s political stance has shifted over the years, he has consistently focused on the spoken word rather than the written page, and his interest in the nuances of sound and pronunciation can be heard in this essay. Baraka’s work has variously found its form in poetry, fiction, essay, drama, music criticism, and performance. The volume in which this essay appeared marks the beginning of the controversy that would surround his politically driven, uncompromising work in the decades to come
    .

    Speech is the effective form of a culture. Any shape or cluster of human history still apparent in the conscious and unconscious habit of groups of people is what I mean by culture. All culture is necessarily profound. The very fact of its longevity, of its being what it is, culture, the epic memory of practical tradition, means that it is profound. But the inherent profundity of culture does not necessarily mean that its uses (and they are as various as the human condition) will be profound. German culture is profound. Generically. Its uses, however, are specific, as are all uses . . . of ideas, inventions, products of nature. And specificity, as a right and passion of human life, breeds what it breeds as a result of context.

    Context, in this instance, is most dramatically social. And the social, though it must be rooted, as are all evidences of existence, in culture, depends for its impetus for the most part on a multiplicity of influences. Other cultures, for instance. Perhaps, and this is a common occurrence, the reaction or interreaction of one culture on another can produce a social context that will extend or influence any culture in many strange directions.

    Social also means economic, as any reader of nineteenth-century European philosophy will understand. The economic is part of the social—and in our time much more so than what we have known as the spiritual or metaphysical, because the most valuable canons of power have either been reduced or traduced into stricter economic terms. That is, there has been a shift in the actual meaning of the world since Dante lived. As if Brooks Adams were right. Money does not mean the same thing to me it must mean to a rich man. I cannot, right now, think of one meaning to name. This is not so simple to understand. Even as a simple term of the English language, money does not possess the same meanings for the rich man as it does for me, a lower-middle-class American, albeit of laughably “aristocratic” pretensions. What possibly can “money” mean to a poor man? And I am not talking now about those courageous products of our permissive society who walk knowledgeably into “poverty” as they would into a public toilet. I mean, The Poor.

    I look in my pocket; I have seventy cents. Possibly I can buy a beer. A quart of ale, specifically. Then I will have twenty cents with which to annoy and seduce my fingers when they wearily search for gainful employment. I have no idea at this moment what that seventy cents will mean to my neighbor around the corner, a poor Puerto Rican man I have seen hopefully watching my plastic garbage can. But I am certain it cannot mean the same thing. Say to David Rockefeller, “I have money,” and he will think you mean something entirely different. That is, if you also dress the part. He would not for a moment think, “Seventy cents.” But then neither would many New York painters.

    Speech, the way one describes the natural proposition of being alive, is much more crucial than even most artists realize. Semantic philosophers are certainly correct in their emphasis on the final dictation of words over their users. But they often neglect to point out that, after all, it is the actual importance, power, of the words that remains so finally crucial. Words have users, but as well, users have words. And it is the users that establish the world’s realities. Realities being those fantasies that control your immediate span of life. Usually they are not your own fantasies, i.e., they belong to governments, traditions, etc., which, it must be clear by now, can make for conflict with the singular human life all ways. The fantasy of America might hurt you, but it is what should be meant when one talks of “reality.” Not only the things you can touch or see, but the things that make such touching or seeing “normal.” Then words, like their users, have a hegemony. Socially—which is final, right now. If you are some kind of artist, you naturally might think this is not so. There is the future. But immortality is a kind of drug, I think—one that leads to happiness at the thought of death. Myself, I would rather live forever . . . just to make sure.

    The social hegemony, one’s position in society, enforces more specifically one’s terms (even the vulgar have “pull”). Even to the mode of speech. But also it makes these terms an available explanation of any social hierarchy, so that the words themselves become, even informally, laws. And of course they are usually very quickly stitched together to make formal statutes only fools or the faithfully intrepid would dare to question beyond immediate necessity.

    The culture of the powerful is very infectious for the sophisticated, and strongly addictive. To be any kind of “success” one must be fluent in this culture. Know the words of the users, the semantic rituals of power. This is a way into wherever it is you are not now, but wish, very desperately, to get into.

    Even speech then signals a fluency in this culture. A knowledge at least. “He’s an educated man,” is the barest acknowledgment of such fluency . . . in any time. “He’s hip,” my friends might say. They connote a similar entrance.

    And it is certainly the meanings of words that are most important, even if they are no longer consciously acknowledged, but merely, by their use, trip a familiar lever of social accord. To recreate instantly the understood hierarchy of social, and by doing that, cultural, importance. And cultures are thought by most people in the world to do their business merely by being hierarchies. Certainly this is true in the West, in as simple a manifestation as Xenophobia, the naïve bridegroom of anti-human feeling, or in economic terms, Colonialism. For instance, when the first Africans were brought into the New World, it was thought that it was all right for them to be slaves because “they were heathens.” It is a perfectly logical assumption.

    And it follows, of course, that slavery would have been an even stranger phenomenon had the Africans spoken English when they first got here. It would have complicated things. Very soon after the first generations of Afro-Americans mastered this language, they invented white people called Abolitionists.

    Words’ meanings, but also the rhythm and syntax that frame and propel their concatenation, seek their culture as the final reference for what they are describing of the world. An A flat played twice on the same saxophone by two different men does not have to sound the same. If these men have different ideas of what they want this note to do, the note will not sound the same. Culture is the form, the overall structure of organized thought (as well as emotion and spiritual pretension). There are many cultures. Many ways of organizing thought, or having thought organized. That is, the form of thought’s passage through the world will take on as many diverse shapes as there are diverse groups of travelers. Environment is one organizer of groups, at any level of its meaning. People who live in Newark, New Jersey, are organized, for whatever purpose, as Newarkers. It begins that simply. Another manifestation, at a slightly more complex level, can be the fact that blues singers from the Midwest sing through their noses. There is an explanation past the geographical, but that’s the idea in tabloid. And singing through the nose does propose that the definition of singing be altered . . . even if ever so slightly. (At this point where someone’s definitions must be changed, we are flitting around at the outskirts of the old city of Aesthetics. A solemn ghost town. Though some of the bones of reason can still be gathered there.)

    But we still need definitions, even if there already are many. The dullest men are always satisfied that a dictionary lists everything in the world. They don’t care that you may find out something extra, which one day might even be valuable to them. Of course, by that time it might even be in the dictionary, or at least they’d hope so, if you asked them directly.

    But for every item in the world, there are a multiplicity of definitions that fit. And every word we use could mean something else. And at the same time. The culture fixes the use, and usage. And in “pluralistic” America, one should always listen very closely when he is being talked to. The speaker might mean something completely different from what we think we’re hearing. “Where is your pot?’’

    I heard an old Negro street singer last week, Reverend Pearly Brown, singing, “God don’t never change!” This is a precise thing he is singing. He does not mean “God does not ever change!” He means “God don’t never change!” The difference, and I said it was crucial, is in the final human reference . . . the form of passage through the world. A man who is rich and famous who sings, “God don’t never change,” is confirming his hegemony and good fortune . . . or merely calling the bank. A blind hopeless black American is saying something very different. He is telling you about the extraordinary order of the world. But he is not telling you about his “fate.” Fate is a luxury available only to those fortunate citizens with alternatives. The view from the top of the hill is not the same as that from the bottom of the hill. Nor are most viewers at either end of the hill, even certain that, in fact, there is any other place from which to look. Looking down usually eliminates the possibility of understanding what it must be like to look up. Or try to imagine yourself as not existing. It is difficult, but poets and politicians try every other day.

    Being told to “speak proper,” meaning that you become fluent with the jargon of power, is also a part of not “speaking proper.” That is, the culture which desperately understands that it does not “speak proper,” or is not fluent with the terms of social strength, also understands somewhere that its desire to gain such fluency is done at a terrifying risk. The bourgeois Negro accepts such risk as profit. But does close-ter (in the context of “jes a close-ter, walk withee”) mean the same thing as closer? Close-ter, in the term of its user is, believe me, exact. It means a quality of existence, of actual physical disposition perhaps . . . in its manifestation as a tone and rhythm by which people live, most often in response to common modes of thought best enforced by some factor of environmental emotion that is exact and specific. Even the picture it summons is different, and certainly the “Thee” that is used to connect the implied “Me” with, is different. The God of the damned cannot know the God of the damner, that is, cannot know he is God. As no Blues person can really believe emotionally in Pascal’s God, or Wittgenstein’s question, “Can the concept of God exist in a perfectly logical language?” Answer: “God don’t never change.”

    Communication is only important because it is the broadest root of education. And all cultures communicate exactly what they have, a powerful motley of experience.

    Copyright should read: Amiri Baraka, "Expressive Language" from Home: Social Essays, published by William Morrow & Company, Inc. Copyright © 1963 by Amiri Baraka. Reprinted by permission of Sterling Lord Literistic, Inc.


    --------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Being told to “speak proper,” meaning that you become fluent with the jargon of power, is also a part of not “speaking proper.” That is, the culture which desperately understands that it does not “speak proper,” or is not fluent with the terms of social strength, also understands somewhere that its desire to gain such fluency is done at a terrifying risk. The bourgeois Negro accepts such risk as profit. But does close-ter (in the context of “jes a close-ter, walk withee”) mean the same thing as closer? Close-ter, in the term of its user is, believe me, exact. It means a quality of existence, of actual physical disposition perhaps . . . in its manifestation as a tone and rhythm by which people live, most often in response to common modes of thought best enforced by some factor of environmental emotion that is exact and specific.
    Some gems in this article overall . Not sure I can buy the message as presented in that , somebody will always have the power, thusly the many will always be under the thumb of that minority's power regardless of the race/color of the power holder..

    And when they resent what great and benevolent masters they would be- they are lying as we all are only human!!!!!
    Look around the world and add in its past history to that equation, then try to seriously tell me that another race would be more benevolent than the white race.
    If you do, then methinks you lack a proper and wise understanding of what being human entails..

    Rest of the essay about words, speech, writing , rhyme and poetry etc. , hits high marks
    and is informative. -Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  17. #120
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    PROSE FROM POETRY MAGAZINE
    All the Animals in My Poems Go into the Ark
    Jon Silkin’s Complete Poems, R.F. Langley’s Complete Poems, and Charlie Louth and Patrick McGuinness’s A C.H. Sisson Reader.

    BY VIDYAN RAVINTHIRAN
    Complete Poems, by Jon Silkin.
    
Carcanet. £29.99.

    Complete Poems, by R.F. Langley.

    Carcanet. £12.99.

    A C.H. Sisson Reader, edited by Charlie Louth and Patrick McGuinness.
    
Carcanet. £19.95.

    As founding editor of Stand Magazine — which, associated with the University of Leeds, still represents an important Northern contribution to the English poetry and short prose scene — Jon Silkin used to scribble his own verse on the back of submitted poems. Those, that is, whose authors failed to include the all-important Stamped Addressed Envelope. (The SAE has always been, I suppose, a gesture of status-confirming humility — you provide the editor with all necessary postage, then your spurned works return in an envelope on which you’ve written your own name, almost as if you’ve rejected yourself; nowadays, of course, there’s often a website telling you “How to Submit.”) The poems Silkin wrote over others’ were biblically-tinged in cadence and seriousness; left-wing-political; intrigued by man’s relationship to nature, and, not quite the same thing, man as an instance of nature. Here is “Orion and the Spiders,” one of “Three Poems to Do with Healing,” from a posthumous collection he wished to entitle Making a Republic:

    We hunt the squealing mouse.
    But we gasp at the ocelot, mostly she’s grey, tinged with fawn
    in naked ovals, her lovely glistening polar underside.
    Who would fire into her belly? Who?
    Silkin’s is nature red in tooth and claw, but also hopefully glimpsed as an egalitarian utopia. (The influence of D.H. Lawrence is evident here — “We foul / The stones we have sprung from / That we share this modest space with, / Brutishly refined / In plucked skirts, and stiff pants” — as is the Quaker folk-painter Edward Hicks, whose Peaceable Kingdom provided a book title and an idea to live and write by; Jon Glover and Kathryn Jenner’s introduction suggests an ecopoet ahead of his time.) Born in London in 1930, and of Lithuanian Jewish stock, Silkin wrote a monograph on the Jewish WWI poet Isaac Rosenberg, and a famously microscopic close reading, requoted at length by Christopher Ricks, of Geoffrey Hill’s “September Song,” that acknowledged masterpiece — if too clever-clever, too Silkin-anticipating? — of Holocaust elegy. So it’s not surprising that he was 
troubled by the influence of T.S. Eliot on his own work. (“Mister Eliot was a Jew-hater,” says the speaker of “A woman from Giannedes,” previously unpublished.) Our political beliefs, our deeply held convictions about who we are, don’t always coincide with the opinions of those who creatively inspire us.

    But to return to how Silkin wrote, rather than what, for I realize the American reader might be under the impression that he could only write all over other people’s poems: a demented fetishist driven to repeat within the creative act the literary critic’s passive-aggressive lunge for dominance. In fact, he was an omnicompositionalist who, the introduction tells us, “wrote everywhere,” a double-sided phrase that links Silkin’s global travels with his habit of writing on all possible surfaces, envelopes and letters as well as other people’s poems. On page lxxxv (!) of Glover and Jenner’s heroically and at times stiflingly meticulous introduction, we find this explanation:

    Even in lengthy poems with a background (or foreground) story 
he couldn’t resist letting language “just happen.” The temptation to “slow down,” to let interpenetrating metaphors and similes do what they want, was something he either enjoyed successfully or (depending on the reader’s point of view) failed to control. Perhaps he did not appreciate that intense image-making could itself tell stories and explore action.

    “Enjoyed successfully” nicely captures how, experimenting with language, the ambitious poet may also be indulging himself. Yet this introduction too often replaces the literary fact (the poems on the page; their style and value) with the literary life. Sure, for Silkin, “writing and publishing were not an adjunct to a ‘normal’ life; they were life” — and it’s important, if dispiriting, to understand how networks contribute to a poet’s reputation. But Glover and Jenner seem to argue at points that because Silkin always was writing, because he did so much as an editor, and published his verse with such frequency in so many places (the magazine publications preceding each collection are exhaustively listed), and knew so many people, especially when he broke into America — that, because of all this, he must be a major poet. Swathes of unpublished work are collected here, with alternative versions of poems, and an extensive bibliography of Silkin’s published articles. (Of the previously unpublished poems, my favorites are “From the inside of the wilderness,” “Going On,” a smack at Thom Gunn, and “Choosing” — the poem on page 219; there is another with the same title on page 822 — which gives both the discrete and the processual its due; acknowledges in the erotic the presence of cognition; and discovers quickly something marvelous within the word “completely”: “ ‘Love’ I said / ‘Is ... ’ You completely / Leaned forward, and kissed me / As if you were naked.”)

    A massively impressive editorial achievement, is this nine-hundred-page tome the best way to experience Silkin as a poet? A poet who wrote too many poems, and also, perhaps, wrote his poems too much; an accretive process, confirmed and extended by the editors — I certainly don’t approve of the disfiguring of poems on the page with endnote markers. The image that suggests itself is an all-inclusive ark, because of the first poem, or “Prologue,” of Silkin’s true debut, The Peaceable Kingdom:

    All the animals in my poems go into the ark
    The human beings walk in the great dark
    The bad dark and the good dark. They walk
    Shivering under the small lamp light
    And the road has two ways to go and the humans none.
    The other two stanzas also begin with “the animals in my poems go into the ark.” Repetition is important to Silkin (I have a soft spot for his lines about “love” in which that ineffectual ultimate word bumpily 
and beautifully repeats, heading nowhere) and is key to his curious mixture of active urging of language and passive wondering at its restlessness. The poet as both editor and anti-editor of himself — Silkin treating Silkin both as he treats others (for example, those hapless contributors to Stand) and also differently, as someone special. A refrain, or a repeated word like dark — Milton’s Samson Agonistes lurks behind this seeming nursery rhyme — might parse either as a 
restatement of the poet’s ordering power or an abdication of it. The words, stripped, apparently, of authorial control, brilliantly or hollowly self-replicate.

    The Peaceable Kingdom also features Silkin’s most famous poem, “Death of a Son” — a more simply understandable and touching elegy, the rhyming epigraph tells us, for a child “who died in a mental hospital aged one.” The rhyme of title and epigraph, “son” and “one,” is the first intimation this is no straightforwardly anecdotal poem, even though the awful incident can be retrieved from its texture without too much trouble:

    Something has ceased to come along with me.
    Something like a person: something very like one.
    And there was no nobility in it
    Or anything like that.
    A scornful start. In fact this could function as a whole poem, a statement of elegiac seriousness akin to Hill’s. The icily impersonal 
pronoun “it” — as if the child who never became a person were turned, cruelly, into a thing — is reminiscent of Marianne Moore’s shortened version of “Poetry”: “I, too, dislike it.” Yet she does continue: “Reading it, however, with a perfect contempt for it, one discovers in it, after all, a place for the genuine.” And Silkin’s poem also goes forth, writing itself onward, refusing to be laconically realist and instead allowing, as elsewhere, the language to do its own thing, to live.

    The form is repeated throughout his first collection — a diamond-shaped four-line stanza, which Silkin breaks with at the very end:

    He turned over on his side with his one year
    Red as a wound
    He turned over as if he could be sorry for this
    And out of his eyes two great tears rolled, like stones,
    and he died.

    The repetition is more than a repetition of Eliot’s Ash Wednesday — 
“Because I do not hope to turn again / Because I do not hope / Because I do not hope to turn” — and the refusal to cauterize into fact a 
complex experience also recalls Rosenberg, in whom “the language-inducing process” (this is Silkin in Out of Battle, his monograph on WWI poets) understands the “full and proper expression” of an idea as inseparable from “its sensuous ramification — the poetry itself.”

    It isn’t right to judge a poet simply by their popular, well-known, even radio-friendly verse. But Silkin wrote so much that peters out in try-hard scrimmage; he stage-manages, perversely amplifies. His voyeurism in the face of linguistic drift might read as self-regarding, for could authentic self-suspicion put forth so unendingly? The poem “A self-directing psalm” compares to “an aphid that cannot let itself be destroyed” the light in a summer night’s sky, which is also “unlike the burned prisoners in a camp,” and then the vertiginous phrase “like, and not like” takes us to “the journey of Abraham with Isaac.” A rich nexus, then, in Rosenberg’s vein. But though “Death of a Son” was right to go on, press through, continuance isn’t always heroic. Silkin may begin compellingly: “Many liberals don’t just / Make love, they first ask each other.” But this poem, “Respectabilities” — from The Re-ordering of the Stones, which I see I’ve dog-eared less than any other section of this book, and is crammed with these dull titles — just doesn’t know when, or how, to stop. “All men are treated / With such perception as stones / Get into subjection to / Their shaper”: the judged thrill of each line-ending provides the poet with a sufficing hit, no doubt, of electrifying clarification the reader cannot share.

    I believe the problem lies precisely with Silkin’s omnicompetence, his facility, his possession of both an elaborative and compressive gift. This second often recalls Hill in its insistence on historical time and the civic attentiveness of the poet capable of honed micro-miracles of attention. Of Jews taken by train through the snow to concentration camps: “Some vomit, softly, in lumps, falling past the edge / of a wagon. Prayers made. None bidding us safe conduct. / In a woman’s back / the butt’s thud.” Ghastly facts, shaped: “some” hesitates harshly between describing vomit or (dehumanized) people; there is the little rhythmic shift in that line, and the reversed syntax at the end. “Bruised” reveals the influence, on the “lapidary poems” of The Psalms with Their Spoils, of another Northern poet, Basil Bunting, whose clenched and tender sadism deepens wonderfully here:

    Lapidary words: for it is hard
    to chisel stone; and to detain
    the reader at the tomb
    softened by moss, and the lichen’s bruised studs
    of gold, is not seemly.

    You, too, would not want
    to take from the wanderer
    grazing the mild squares of London
    his time you now bear.

    There’s no more; the lichen’s nail innocently
    feeds its point
    into the child’s burying place.
    — Lapidary Words
    “The lichen’s nail” is both tender moss and nature’s chisel. A tomb is softened, ruralized, its hard truth disguised by its verdure; the final stanza complicates a dual vision of the lichen as both naive growth and long-standing destroyer. How strange it is to read this poem, with its statement about the limited attention of the reader, and how it mustn’t be abused, alongside Silkin’s more interminable verse!






    R.F. Langley wrote and published sparingly. A mystique attaches to poets of this kind — really, they are super-poets, repeating and reinforcing on a career level the standard value-logic of lyric verse: drastically fewer words than in any other literary form, but each, for that reason, precious. (And they seem so uncareerist — Langley taught English and art history to schoolchildren before retiring to the Suffolk countryside — so unforcing of their rare lovely bursts of inspiration; they have grown up, lived well, in a wider world.) Educated at Cambridge, Langley is linked with the school of poetry named for that university, but while his verse does move in unobvious ways, fusing wittily (modern complexities are assumed) mysteriously different registers, there remains the feeling of — he differs here from his friend J.H. Prynne, who read at his memorial service — an individual mind making sense of its surroundings.

    That said, simple sense can’t always be made. A reductive immediacy is complicated, perception combining with, flooded by, 
intellection; Jeremy Noel-Tod, the editor of this wonderful Complete Poems, has argued persuasively that they “shrink interestingly from the single, arrogating point of view, the self-possessed lyric ‘I’. You, I, he, she, we, it are liable to take each other’s place without warning.” Langley’s sentences fragment, they are crisp, multifarious, hastened by internal rhymes, sometimes wordplay:

    The warm sun in some June. This June.
    Both Junes. Take now and make a then.
    A room. A roomy workshop. Elderflowers.
    Forget the scent. Here is a carpenter,
    singing. It is a hymn.
    — From The Ecstasy Inventories
    A wineglass of water on
    the windowsill where it will
    catch the light. Now be quiet
    while I think. And groan. And blink.
    — From Still Life with Wineglass
    The beetle runs into the future. He takes
    to his heels in an action so frantic its
    flicker seems to possess the slowness of deep
    water. He has been green. He will be so yet.
    — From Blues for Titania
    The final quotation enlarges the phrasing of Langley’s introductory “Note,” first published in 1994, where running becomes a metaphor less for conscious composition than for the eerie volition of poems themselves: “Juan Fernandez,” he says, “ran ahead of me well, feeling fit, keeping me surprised.... I don’t write many poems, so each one has to be able to keep running, faster than I can, for as long as possible.” The slow flicker of that weightily frantic beetle also evokes Langley’s style, which has a way of sounding at once both urgent and curiously unurgent. A breathy swiftness of utterance — or is this 
silent and self-directed speech, a rapid mental flusker? — doesn’t prevent more sculptured effects. The poet frames, underlines, points things out.

    Given Langley’s profession I do catch the teacher’s accent in these lines, though the bad word “didactic” isn’t relevant, not in the least. 
I also wonder how quickly, and with what emphasis, he should be read. The shaping is undeniable, as a duration is lifted out of the tingling instant and allowed to expand:

    The wineglass stands fast in a
    gale of sunlight, where there is
    one undamaged thistle seed
    caught on its rim, moving its
    long filaments through blue to
    orange, slowly exploring
    the glorious furniture.
    — From Still Life with Wineglass
    “Where” and “its” do much of the work here; these are subtle ligatures, intimate and unobtrusive. Perception is renovated and a field of force — Langley’s own phrase, which I quote later — is acknowledged. Here the sentence elongates under scrutiny and the recognitions 
of the poet’s wonderfully attentive ear. (Of its umpteen delicacies I would pick out the interaction of “stands fast” and “thistle,” which ever so gently quashes that sandwiching st sound; also the lingering Keatsian richness of “caught,” “long,” “orange,” “exploring,” and “glorious.”)

    In this “Still Life” the interest in color is indeed painterly, and those “filaments” turn the thistle seed into a paintbrush moving along the palette or canvas. (These lines also recall Frank O’Hara’s “Why I Am Not a Painter,” which reaches a crescendo with the word “orange,” and has the same lightly lineated look on the page.) As Langley writes in his aforementioned note, “every brushstroke changes the picture. If it’s crimson it intensifies all the greens and there’s the new problem in how to respond to that.” In discussing him as both an experimentally vagarious and an immediately exciting poet, the parallel that suggests itself is with Howard Hodgkin, whose paintings seem abstract but, he insists, are actually representational — one should lift, as out of a magic-eye poster, the emotional situation of two lovers in embrace out of swoops of luscious color.

    Langley extends a strand of pictorial writing (he’s particularly fond of the word, and color tone, “cream”) that develops out of the poet’s journal, expresses a fascination with the overlap of casual prose with verse artistry, and is turned into publishable set-pieces by John Ruskin before it marvelously matures in the neglected notebooks of that queasily and deliciously Victorian-modern genius, Gerard Manley Hopkins. Langley’s own Journals were published in 2006 by Shearsman, and extracts previously appeared in PN Review; these are private writings, “necessarily impromptu,” says Langley, which have yet reached an audience through an intelligently understanding magazine, and are pitched — like Hopkins’s supposedly private jottings — at an understanding reader. In his preface, Langley mentions,

    a series of journals that I have been keeping since the 1970s. During the years they cover my parents have died, I have been divorced and remarried, our two children have been born and have grown up, found jobs, left home.

    Yet none of this is mentioned in the journals, which “are not the sort of journals that directly confront such things.” So do they indirectly confront them, in their energized minute descriptions of birds, beasts, and flowers, so close to those of his verse, but also apprehending of the propensities and potentialities of prose? In August 1992: “So long since I wrote. A year. Who cares? What then? Little. Not really any better. No change after the journeying.” Yet elsewhere those short sentences are, as in the verse, molecular wonders — “small flints crunch”; “the bent leaves are a sight I see”; “small flies tickle” — alert, like Ruskin and Hopkins, to the question of how, in a modern disenchanted universe, to “string all this together.” December 25, 1970: “No sound of the snow except when you stand by bits of the hedge where oak leaves are thick, golden fawn, dry as chapattis, and broken like them, rather than torn, at their edges.”

    Here the oak, that most English of trees, is compared to an Indian flatbread — an ingenious and even cosmopolitan connection. As Homa Khaleeli writes in The Guardian, although Indian restaurants in England “multiplied in the 1950s and 60s to feed the newly arrived south Asian factory workers, their boom time only begun in the 70s, when they adapted their menus for a working-class, white clientele.” So the journal observation is very much of its moment; and if I’ve lingered overlong on a tiny detail — race isn’t one of Langley’s subjects — it’s because there does seem to be a cultural idea behind his community of particular details, sometimes harshly separate, and vanishing, but elsewhere unified. Langley also takes, I think, not only from nursery rhyme but also from Hopkins, his everyman “Jack,” who first appears as “Man Jack” in Twelve Poems and later in a verse-sequence from the Collected Poems: “Jack built himself a house to hide in and / take stock”; “Jack meets / me and we go to see what we must do”; “There’s Jack. / A figure I imagine / I can see far off in a / dark library.” And in “Tom Thumb”:

    We should accept the obvious facts of physics.
    The world is made entirely of particles in
    fields of force. Of course. Tell it to Jack. Except it
    doesn’t seem to be enough tonight. Not because
    he’s had his supper and the upper regions are
    cerulean, as they have been each evening
    since the rain.
    This perspective isn’t anti-scientific, but it does insist on the more than material, on a sense of universal being evasive of empirical explanation. “Tell it to Jack” is interesting, because the more clearly impatient “Tell that to Jack” — where Jack would represent the stalwart resister of such unspiritual blockheadedness — is the expected phrase. “It,” which repeats, shows Langley playing with pronouns again, and it occurs to me (returning here to Noel-Tod’s remark, that in his poetry “You, I, he, she, we, it are liable to take each other’s place without warning”) that not just an atomic universe but an atomized society is apprehended with sensitivity in his verse.

    Langley’s style (those short sentences; the darting doubt; recognition of beauty; the desire, as he puts it in “Tom Thumb,” to “stop taking stock, and listen”) would, then, be a style of cultural enquiry, into how disparate minds could possibly meet, or at least communicate. This is why, in that poem, Jack is said to have

    involved himself in how
    the gnats above the chimney shared their worrying
    together, working out their troubles in a crowd.
    They must have done that every summer, all my life. 
    Jack says he never saw them doing it till now.
    Langley searches for, and postulates, uncommon experiences that may yet be held in common: “We leave unachieved in the / summer dusk. There was no / need for you rather than me”; “It is a common experience to come upon a / pale, glittering house set far back across / a meadow. It is certainly inside you.” “The Gorgoneion,” named for a protective and horrifying pendant with a gorgon’s head on it, is rightly compared by Noel-Tod with Larkin’s “Aubade.” Yet Larkin describes of the pre-dawn hours a state of total isolation from both other people and the religious myths that once enlivened and made life meaningful. He speaks out of an Englishness entirely sure of the hard bare facts of the matter denied by the weak, and skeptical of the suggestion that life among others could evince its own joyousness. Langley begins in the same darkness, but unlike Larkin he doesn’t speak on behalf of a presumed “we,” a cultural grouping that apparently shares the poet’s opinions, and yet with whom he could never belong. He moves, instead, uncertain yet responsive, from “you” to “someone”:

    Once more the menace of the small
    hours and of coming to light and of
    each sharper complication. There was
    a loosening which let much neglected
    detail out of the dark. You can’t look
    away once it’s started to move. This.
    Must. And so must this. In bitter little
    frills and hitches. About in a suspicious
    twiddle are the tips of someone’s ten
    fingers which could, sometime, touch
    mine.
    Larkin’s poem is surer and for that reason the more spectacular. It knows what it knows. “I know / the sort of thing,” says Langley, less convincingly, and more likeably. His isolato acknowledges, yet is skeptical of, his suffering. (Does a differently recognizable, unmelodramatic English voice lurk within these lines, saying tersely: “Mustn’t complain”?) The poem cannot utterly embrace disaster given its saving recognition of the presence, the similitude in pain, of others: a both threatening and redemptive “touch.” It ends: “a hand is laid down and / another turns itself upward to be clasped.”





    To say that C.H. Sisson is an “unfashionable” poet, as Charlie Louth and Patrick McGuinness do several times in their introduction to the new Reader, is to refuse the vulgar media criterion of, God help us, “relatability” — though the lucid back note does say that, published on the centenary of his birth, this book restores to us a writer who “speaks with clarity to the twenty-first century reader’s expectations and discontents.” Sisson is both different to us, then, and the same. A modernist conservative (“Toryism as defined by Johnson,” he writes, “has almost always been a doctrine of opposition, and so it will 
remain”) whose politics, in shrewdly sculpted essays on not just verse but culture more broadly, reveals a — the editors again — “specifically English suspicion of the grand scheme, the total plan, a willingness to work with what is fallen and imperfect.”

    Reading the prose collected here alongside the verse, I found 
myself repeatedly underlining effects of style, where patrician tonalities are renewed by a constant, conscious liveliness — Sisson remarks the priority of “rhythm” in verse, and understands its value in prose, too. On the style of Wyndham Lewis, whose work “is so intensely patterned that, starting from almost any sentence chosen at random, one could start an explanation which would not stop short of the completed oeuvre”:

    Not unrelated to the difficulties of using speech as the medium of political philosophy are the difficulties arising from those aspects of Lewis’s writing which are called his personality. Not even Ben Jonson himself emitted a more obsessive penumbra. One is the presence of mannerisms, not unrelated to art, apparently as compulsive as the habit a woman might have of screwing 
up her handkerchief, or a swallow has of building, repeatedly, a certain sort of nest.

    I’m afraid this is one of those hackneyed moments where the critic, me, says of the poet-critic writing of another — a skein of commentary tough to acknowledge without wincing — that he may as well be talking about himself. (Perhaps style is the outward struggle of our egotism, a hope that, in talking of ourselves, we may say with surety real things of others, too.) In Sisson’s prose the mannerisms we might designate reductively, for the moment, “middle-class English,” establish a tonal music: it reminds me of reading through and being ravished by the nature descriptions of Hopkins, wishing absent from his journals words like “delightfully,” but coming to accept these Victorian social tics as inextricable features of his prose fabric, no less than his identity. The equivalents in Sisson may even be load-bearing.

    The first sentence quoted is instantly donnish: “not unrelated to” has, like the querying of the label “personality,” its air of fussy specification — not for Sisson, the inadvertence or vulgarity of direct statement. Yet there follows the contrarily forthright assumption that in discussing Lewis’s prose along these lines, Ben Jonson is the benchmark; “himself,” which bridges unobtrusively the style and the man; and that self-consciously relished, and even overwritten close: does “obsessive” really belong, there, before “penumbra”? Stymied by Sisson’s tortuousness, in my first reading of this passage I mistook the next clause for “One is in the presence of.” In the presence of whom, I wondered — royalty? No one uses “one” quite like Sisson, and he appeared here to insist on proper respect before a figure of authority, on reading as an activation of exquisite proprieties. But I had in fact supplied — reading with the skimming eye, alas, not the hearing ear — the missing word in, which he didn’t write.

    “One” actually refers back to the “difficulties” arisen from “aspects of Lewis’s writing.” I missed this because of the intervening sentence about Jonson, for Sisson’s gliding spoken drift doesn’t pause to place that aside in parentheses. “Mannerisms” — though his own style makes the case for them — is possibly pejorative, so there’s need of arch nuance: “not unrelated to art.” “Apparently” is a social word, a tic of speech, which masks a depth/surface judgment about the value of Lewis’s writing, and “compulsive” (pejorative again) is gradually redeemed, if not by the woman screwing up her handkerchief, then by the swallow “building, repeatedly” (another comma-ruffle!) its true nest. If there is a complexity to Sisson’s politics, so difficult to pin down, because of its coarse coding today but also his own elusiveness, it must inhere in, inhabit, his curated style.

    At least this is what I would like to believe, for if one tots up more simply the grumpy propositions a less sympathetic figure emerges. I’ve starred with my pencil Sisson’s various objections: to our “age,” in which “a certain sloppiness goes into the general conception of art, and nowhere more than in Anglo-Saxondom,” and “fashions now well up from the lower orders, happily supplied with money to indulge their fancy in a world of mass-produced gew-gaws”; to “that rubbish of imaginary rights which are conceived of as a sort of 
metaphysical property of each individual”; and all in all “the great obligatory truths of the left, which all decent people” — you can hear the sneer — “take without choking: put compendiously, a belief in the harmony of democracy, large-scale organization, and individual self-expression.” He confronts “the idiotic dogmatist of the permissive,” thinks “the word ‘democracy’ is now so full of air that it is about to burst,” and claims that the “ease of technology will, in any case, in the end produce a race of diminishing consciousness, for whom the only persuasion is by force.” He describes Edward Thomas’s wife and children, with a typically coat-trailing remark, as among the “natural objects” that tutored him, and there is an essay here praising the work of Montgomery Belgion, the anti-Semitic essayist whose opinions, published in The Criterion, have damaged the reputation of T.S. Eliot and were indeed taken by some commentators for those of Eliot himself. You don’t want to believe Sisson is a crypto-fascist — “this brand of conservative cultural politics ... does not tarry with the radical right,” insist Louth and McGuinness — but in this case he doesn’t do himself any favors.

    He is also, however, anti-economistic, a now attractive position: an excerpt from The Case of Walter Bagehot makes the case against the “shadow republic” of high finance. It’s unsurprising that previously, yes, “unfashionable” writers like Sisson and F.R. Leavis now seem possible spokespeople: the humanities feel the need of self-defense, and imagination-confounding wealth disparities reveal a society drastically in need of restructuring. We want something else, something better, but seem to have pledged ourselves, and those who theorize on behalf of culture, quality, and, in short, art — who have 
defended the sensibility of, often, an unhappy few against the bean-counters and their death of a thousand cuts — tend to arrive with a good deal of reactionary baggage in tow. For if you don’t believe in capital, what form of (intangible, non-empirical, snobby) currency do you endorse? Fine, Sisson is reactionary, but can we, intent on preserving, through our attentions to literature, the radical thought of past ages, be so sure that the spirit of the age, iPhone in hand, doesn’t understand us, too, as culturally conservative?

    Many who, in a more rational system,
    Would be thought mad if they behaved as they do in this one
    Are obsessed by the more insidious forms of property:
    They buy and sell merchandise they will never see,
    Hawking among Wren’s churches, and, if they say their prayers,
    Say them, without a doubt, to stocks and shares.
    That’s “The London Zoo,” a longish poem published in 1961 but still absolutely on the money in its jibes at economic “rationality” and the unquestioning faith in funds that turn out, to the detriment of all but the super-rich, to not exist. One might not agree with Sisson that the church provides any longer an intact alternative, but it’s hard to read this variously dated and hyper-relevant, both mannered and 
scorchingly immediate, poem without longing for the return to the poetic scene of full-blown (rather than knowingly compromised, complicit, self-deprecating) satire:

    Out on the platform like money from a cashier’s shovel
    The responsible people fall at the end of their travel.
    Some are indignant that their well-known faces
    Are not accepted instead of railway passes;
    Others faithfully produce the card by which the authorities
    Regulate the movement of animals in great cities.
    With growing consciousness of important function
    Each man sets out for where he is admired most,
    The one room in London where everything is arranged
    To enlarge his importance and deaden his senses.
    The secretary who awaits him has corrected her bosom;
    His papers are in the disorder he has chosen.
    Anxieties enough to blot out consciousness
    Are waiting satisfactorily on his desk.
    The influence of Eliot and The Waste Land (a poem, writes Sisson, healing the pejorative again, of “decisive novelty”) is strong here in both content and form; couplets clobberingly arrive, others are strangled in the cradle, as Pound did with “The Fire Sermon.” But the key word is “consciousness,” which occurs twice: first as a type of bad self-regard, and then as a given, obscured by false anxieties. It’s a concept Sisson returns to in both verse and criticism. For him, 
“consciousness — as is not perhaps widely understood — is purely traditional,” a “product of history.” It is what anchors us in time and place and answers to the more parochial side of the poet’s thinking: “You cannot be Plato in Bechuanaland or George Herbert in Connecticut,” he says, sounding, himself, weirdly like Wallace Stevens. But Sisson also requires of poetry that it should not be willful or calculated, and explains his turn to translation as a defense against “the embarrassing growth of the area of consciousness” that imperils original creation. He quotes, and appears to agree with, Shelley’s revolutionary contention (you couldn’t, on first glance, imagine two thinkers or writers so far apart) that poetry “is not subject to the control of the active powers of the mind, and that its birth and recurrence have no necessary connexion with the consciousness or will.” “So much,” remarks Sisson drolly, “for recording that moment when Philip Larkin got up for a piss”; and you could argue that his baffled talk of “consciousness” represents only a cripplingly English self-consciousness trying to outwit its own hampering borders, and a weapon to be used, in this case, against the “journalistic” verse he happens to dislike. (He does sound like Larkin, whatever he claims: “Now I am forty I must lick my bruises / What has been suffered cannot be repaired / I have chosen what whoever grows up chooses / A sickening garbage that could not be shared.”) But Sisson also follows Shelley to the point of rejecting conventional notions of identity, and writes in “My Life and Times”:

    So damn the individual touch
    Of which the critics make so much;
    Remember that the human race
    Grins more or less in every face.
    Characteristically acid — “more or less” — these lines nevertheless present a poetics, and an ethics, heartening in its confusions. Not a tepid universalism but an agonized thinking of individuals as centerless extrusions from different places, soiled by alternative parishes with the dirt of selfhood.

    Despite a few early squibs, Sisson really began writing verse while serving in India during WWII, and there’s a relevant poem here, “In Time of Famine: Bengal,” about, apparently, a starving beggar-child:

    I do not say this child
    This child with grey mud
    Plastering her rounded body
    I do not say this child
    For she walks poised and happy
    But I say this
    Who looks in at the carriage window
    Her eyes are big
    Too big
    Her hair is touzled and her mouth is doubtful
    And I say this
    Who lies with open eyes upon the pavement
    Can you hurt her?
    Tread on those frightened eyes
    Why should it frighten her to die?
    This is a fault
    This a fault in which I have a part.
    This isn’t an entirely successful poem, but I quote it in full since its unsuccess — all those thistly and unyieldingly separate pronouns; the poised and happy, specific child, overlaid with a conventional fantasia of poverty and domination — does reflect Sisson’s concern with consciousness and the individual and how these concepts or categories give to airy nothing only a local habitation and a name. It’s one of Sisson’s poems that refuses or at least troubles everyday syntax and grammar, it splinters and repeats; the later work isn’t always so obvious about it, but still looks, stop-start and cautious, in more than one direction. Although he wouldn’t be impressed by my leap from literary form to politics — “the world is changing fast, and not even formal rhyme-schemes will save us from this,” quips Sisson — it does seem to me that the conservative poet’s belief, like that of Edmund Burke, in the slow organic growth of an irresistible culture, sits oddly, if at all, with his more periodic, oblique, fractured verse. “It is as if Eliot would not yield to the muse until he had tested all that rationality could do for him” and this opinion-clad civil servant, essayist, and editor would also follow his embattled sense of nationality, his prickly, perhaps merely prickly, architectures of contumely, into the void:

    Alone
    But to say “alone” would be to give validity
    To a set of perceptions which are nothing at all
    — A set as these words are
    Set down
    Meaninglessly on paper, by nobody.
    — From The Desert
    Originally Published: January 4, 2016
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums