The appointment of W.S. Merwin to the post of Poet Laureate must come as a kind of anti-climax at this point. Having won nearly every award, grant, prize, fellowship and accolade for which an American poet can qualify, Merwin can claim (after 50 years of it, as few ever could) to be a successful, full-time, professional poet.
His collected poems must run to well over 2000 pages (!) at this point. One might well ask, with justice, how anyone, no matter how talented and lucky, could expect to continue over a long lifetime (Merwin is now 82) to produce enough good work to justify all that prolificity. And that's not all! He has also found the time to produce at least six full collections of stories and prose recollection, in addition to nearly 30 books of translations. No surprise, then, that he hasn't spent nearly as much time teaching as many of his contemporaries, having devoted more effort towards supporting himself through translation work.
Merwin, then, looks a lot more like the old-fashioned European model of man-of-letters, than he does the opportunistic, flash-in-the-pan, American version: A dedicated worker, doggedly churning out product, keeping out of the spotlight, refraining from taking publicly unpopular views, and generally maintaining a low profile.
Ordinarily, a writer whose career began, as Merwin's did, with immediate recognition (he won the Yale Prize in 1952, at the age of 24), proceeds to produce another half-dozen books, and a sheaf of essays, perhaps a verse play, and then folds his tent. But Merwin kept on writing and writing.... By 1967, when his "break-out" book, The Lice, was published by Atheneum, he looked to be well into his late period, his "mature" fulfillment. (Actually, I've always thought it was his previous book, The Moving Target [Atheneum, 1963], that signaled his real departure from the academic and staid style of his early period, but no matter.) The Carrier of Ladders [1970], and Writings to an Unfinished Accompaniment [1973] merely extended and elaborated the gains in the manner of the previous two books.
There was some doubt at the time, about the extent to which Merwin had really transformed himself with this sequence of books. How genuine, in other words, was Merwin's attempt to remake himself into the counter-cultural guru which the age (the 1960's) demanded? Bly, Wright, Kinnell, Rich, Hecht, Simpson, Justice, et al, had tried to accommodate their manner and means to the relaxed atmosphere of that period--with varying degrees of success.
In my view, Merwin's self-renewal was probably among the least convincing of the lot. The generality of his subject-matter--always safely "classical" or remote (European)--and its fashionably (though politely vague) liberal bias always struck me as safe and timid. As book after book after book continued to be added to the already groaning shelf of titles, one began to wonder at his agenda, as if just the process of generating more matter were some proof of worth. Merwin has published fully 14 collections of verse since The Lice, and shows no signs of slowing, even now. After Writings to an Unfinished Accompaniment (clever title, that...) I decided that his work was no longer of much interest: The style seemed fixed, and there didn't seem to be an argument behind any of his poems. I can do it again, and again, and maybe the next one will be better.... In some media, this kind of persistence is useful. For instance, in photography, Brett Weston was rumored to have produced several thousand finished negatives, all of which he burned shortly before his death, in order to prevent others from "interpreting" them in the future. And Harry Callahan continued to make exposures, thousands of which he never believed should ever be perfected and shown. But photography is a different kind of act--you don't know what you've "got" until it floats in the tray.
Writing, however, is another thing altogether. A book of poems--representing a period of between 6 months (Sylvia Plath's Ariel was the work of, I think, just a couple of months) and perhaps 5 years, should summarize a period of concern and awareness that defines an attitude and an approach to form that is compelling enough to warrant the process of editing and finishing and publishing. A book of poems should not simply be an annual or bi-annual report, rehashing the same data and conclusions, in the same manner as previously. Aesthetic productions are not boxes of cereal or software updates. A poem, a book, a painting, a song, a room--these should be unique and persuasive enough--and challenging--on their own, to demand the test of appreciation and value.
A light verse hack like Odgen Nash could with justice crank out a couple of thousand pages of dopey rhymes. People who have an appetite for that stuff could wade through it to their heart's desire. But serious poetry requires a greater concentration, a sense of necessity which becomes dilute if hurried or indulged in too liberally. George Oppen's work, in Discrete Series, The Materials and This in Which, always struck me as complete. Of Being Numerous, Seascape and Primitive, for my taste, don't add much to the total effect of his work.
Merwin himself, in one of his most telling moods, actually wrote a poem (included in The Moving Target) about wanting his work to be driven by "necessity" rather than opportunity or vanity or ambition. But he didn't follow his own injunction. He kept on publishing--and submitting--his work endlessly.
Merwin was showcased last night on PBS's The NewsHour (formerly The Jim Lehrer News Hour), and he was as usual polite, a bit intriguing, and a little faint in his impression. He read a poem about his mother--a pretty good poem, actually--while sitting on a stair-case on the street.
Rain Light
All day the stars watch from long ago
my mother said I am going now
when you are alone you will be all right
whether or not you know you will know
look at the old house in the dawn rain
all the flowers are forms of water
the sun reminds them through a white cloud
touches the patchwork spread on the hill
the washed colors of the afterlife
that lived there long before you were born
see how they wake without a question
even though the whole world is burning
--which is really not bad at all, though it exhibits all the usual faults of a mature Merwin poem: The droning, the lack of a conversational variance in the tone of voice, the personification of a vague figure "mother" with a gratuitous confusion between what she is allegedly saying and what the poet is evoking, the vagueness of the images, the slackness of the language (none of the lines is particularly memorable in phrasing or sound). Withal, it is a very "nice" poem, with three or four touches--but what are the "washed colors of the afterlife"? The whole experience of the poem is of a series of soft, vague, shifting movements or non-specific impressions, no one of which is very memorable, all of which contribute to a kind of echo of a possible conception of a poem, the stuff of a possible poem, were the poet inclined to polish it and raise it to the level of inspired utterance. Merwin was careful to second the interviewer's query about putting poems into "commonplace" language; but we have every right to demand that a poet with Merwin's facility put more into his work than everyday language.
There has to be more inside a poem than what Merwin gives us. These rocking-chair poems, sitting on the porch in early Autumn, blandly apostrophizing from memory, the remote sentiments of a previous time--are not good enough. We demand more from poetry than this.
15 comments:
Withal, it is a very "nice" poem, with three or four touches--but what are the "washed colors of the afterlife"? The whole experience of the poem is of a series of soft, vague, shifting movements or non-specific impressions, no one of which is very memorable...
That seems to describe a great deal of official poetry of the last few decades, tho' I sort of enjoyed the few Merwin pieces someone demanded we read out of Norton something or another....
One thing about ...Ezra Pound-- he seemed to avoid the soft or "hallmarky". (Same for other greats--say Rilke. Or the Best of Sheets and Kelley). surrealists, perhaps, but at the same time the surrealist funhouse becomes boring rather quickly (for that matter, what poet can keep up with a Dali or Magrittte?? few).
Pound's poesy wasn't merely the beatnik "f*cking and heroin" school either, or "te amo Karl Marx" (then, semi-coherent marxists often are preferable to Hallmark too). Great poets must be great minds, alas--
Curtis,
this Merwin winning Poet Laureate in the U.S. seems to be sticking in everybody's craw, and I wonder why. The hidden psychology of resentment underlies much of yours and Silliman's comments, and an outsider such as myself must ask why.
I've never heard of the man til I turned on my computer today nor do I get the Library of Congress and Poet Laureate connection either(it sounds dreadfully political!) It seems Silliman's just showing the usual avant-gardists' disdain for anyone making into the nation's literary consciousness before they do. It hasn't occurred to him (and his crew) that the avant-garde can only flourish as the OUTSIDER: content to remain the hidden toxin in mainstream culture. When will the ever learn from Arp, Tzara,Marinetti, Apollinaire, etc
I'm tired of his whining. And frankly (unless Grenier's had a silent influence )I don't know why a Formalist type of guy like you won't rally to the Erwin cause. The brief bio and outline of his literary development ("self-renewal") you've given seem pretty sympathetic. But to demand more from a poet who's exercised his craft for over fifty years seems like a pretty silly request.I don't think you've done justice to Erwin's language & poetics (judging by the flat critique of his "Rain Light" piece).
And besides who'd tolerate a writer of Sillimanesque asyntactical Sentences or pwoermds or Flarf or programmable media poetry as a nation's leading literary figure. And frankly who cares. I think we ought to be more concerned about what's going on in Afghanistan and the Gulf.
Conrad:
My experience of Merwin's work is not total (comprehensive), but clearly more than what you've had. I "lived through" much of the literary time which WSM's career covers, and have complicated opinions about where he belongs in the sequence and ranking of his time(s).
Let's not oversimplify the critical issues that surround the work of any important writer. If my take on Merwin's work is negative, you should read him to make your own assessment. A negative assessment--which you take mine to be--can't have any meaning for you until, or unless, you can offer a an opposite (countervailing) experience from you own reading. Otherwise, you're arguing from a position of ignorance (I don't mean that in the negative sense--only that you're unfamiliar with his work--by your own admission).
Curtis,
yes, I'd never heard of Merwin til this morning.I'll probably order a copy of his works from Amazon later and familiarize myself with the man's writing,something I like to do. In fact, it was here that I first became acquainted with James Wright. But I'm commenting on a single blog article in which (a) you provide an overview of the issue of Merwin's winning the Poet Laureate post and (b) make, at the same time, some disdainful comments about a poet's style, based mostly on an analysis of a single poem. To both of which I've every right in the world to post a response, good, bad or indifferent.
I'd say, logically, your comments and my "ignorant" retorts are about on an equal footing, eh? Heavens, you wouldn't have many readers if the requirement of complete familiarity with topic content were imposed. A reader can tune into 'style' and 'argumentation' as easily as content itself. I'd rather prefer to regard the Erwin piece you've commented on not as some "graspable" thing restricted to a single, identifiable moment in your own personal life-history: the Erwin piece, to me, as all literary oeuvre is an unfolding event on which I've as much right to comment as you, especially since some controversy has also arisen over it.
It's also the cynicism with which you and Silliman are treating the issue of Merwin's laureatship that got my attention. Again, I thought you'd like the formalist style of the man. There are interesting cultural differences between Americans and Canadians that I find intriguing: so you'll have to forgive my eagerness to jump into the fray when interesting topics like this come up, however unfamiliar I may be with the poet and the macchinations of Poet Laureate selection. Both of which are only temporary limitations.
Curtis,
yes, I'd never heard of Merwin til this morning.I'll probably order a copy of his works from Amazon later and familiarize myself with the man's writing,something I like to do. In fact, it was here that I first became acquainted with James Wright. But I'm commenting on a single blog article in which (a) you provide an overview of the issue of Merwin's winning the Poet Laureate post and (b) make, at the same time, some disdainful comments about a poet's style, based mostly on an analysis of a single poem. To both of which I've every right in the world to post a response, good, bad or indifferent.
I'd say, logically, your comments and my "ignorant" retorts are about on an equal footing, eh? Heavens, you wouldn't have many readers if the requirement of complete familiarity with topic content were imposed. A reader can tune into 'style' and 'argumentation' as easily as content itself. I'd rather prefer to regard the Erwin piece you've commented on not as some "graspable" thing restricted to a single, identifiable moment in your own personal life-history: the Erwin piece, to me, as all literary oeuvre is an unfolding event on which I've as much right to comment as you, especially since some controversy has also arisen over it.
It's also the cynicism with which you and Silliman are treating the issue of Merwin's laureatship that got my attention. Again, I thought you'd like the formalist style of the man. There are interesting cultural differences between Americans and Canadians that I find intriguing: so you'll have to forgive my eagerness to jump into the fray when interesting topics like this come up, however unfamiliar I may be with the poet and the macchinations of Poet Laureate selection. Both of which are only temporary limitations.
Curtis,
yes, I'd never heard of Merwin til this morning.I'll probably order a copy of his works from Amazon later and familiarize myself with the man's writing,something I like to do. In fact, it was here that I first became acquainted with James Wright. But I'm commenting on a single blog article in which (a) you provide an overview of the issue of Merwin's winning the Poet Laureate post and (b) make, at the same time, some disdainful comments about a poet's style, based mostly on an analysis of a single poem. To both of which I've every right in the world to post a response, good, bad or indifferent.
I'd say, logically, your comments and my "ignorant" retorts are about on an equal footing, eh? Heavens, you wouldn't have many readers if the requirement of complete familiarity with topic content were imposed. A reader can tune into 'style' and 'argumentation' as easily as content itself. I'd rather prefer to regard the Erwin piece you've commented on not as some "graspable" thing restricted to a single, identifiable moment in your own personal life-history: the Erwin piece, to me, as all literary oeuvre is an unfolding event on which I've as much right to comment as you, especially since some controversy has also arisen over it.
It's also the cynicism with which you and Silliman are treating the issue of Merwin's laureatship that got my attention. Again, I thought you'd like the formalist style of the man. There are interesting cultural differences between Americans and Canadians that I find intriguing: so you'll have to forgive my eagerness to jump into the fray when interesting topics like this come up, however unfamiliar I may be with the poet and the macchinations of Poet Laureate selection. Both of which are only temporary limitations.
Curtis,
yes, I'd never heard of Merwin til this morning.I'll probably order a copy of his works from Amazon later and familiarize myself with the man's writing,something I like to do. In fact, it was here that I first became acquainted with James Wright. But I'm commenting on a single blog article in which (a) you provide an overview of the issue of Merwin's winning the Poet Laureate post and (b) make, at the same time, some disdainful comments about a poet's style, based mostly on an analysis of a single poem. To both of which I've every right in the world to post a response, good, bad or indifferent.
I'd say, logically, your comments and my "ignorant" retorts are about on an equal footing, eh? Heavens, you wouldn't have many readers if the requirement of complete familiarity with topic content were imposed. A reader can tune into 'style' and 'argumentation' as easily as content itself. I'd rather prefer to regard the Erwin piece you've commented on not as some "graspable" thing restricted to a single, identifiable moment in your own personal life-history: the Erwin piece, to me, as all literary oeuvre is an unfolding event on which I've as much right to comment as you, especially since some controversy has also arisen over it.
It's also the cynicism with which you and Silliman are treating the issue of Merwin's laureatship that got my attention. Again, I thought you'd like the formalist style of the man. There are interesting cultural differences between Americans and Canadians that I find intriguing: so you'll have to forgive my eagerness to jump into the fray when interesting topics like this come up, however unfamiliar I may be with the poet and the macchinations of Poet Laureate selection. Both of which are only temporary limitations.
Conrad:
I think you're misapprehending the process here.
Blogging is an informal indulgence, but one does have a responsibility to what one feels. Obviously, my comprehension of Merwin's work is a hundred times more complex than the reading (or analysis) of a single poem. My take here is meant only to remind myself (and to point out to the reader) that Merwin's work has shown amazing consistency of approach over the last 40 years, and that what I still see in it shows little change or improvement over that whole period. That may be a crucial indictment, but such is my opinion.
Before objecting to what you perceive as a limited view of this writer's work, you should probably undertake to read a segment of his work--both old and new--and then decide for yourself whether Ron's and my view of it is correct. Until you do that, you're just basically complaining about "negativity".
Another tip: Why not read the Merwin poem I've quoted in a different way, your way? It's perfectly possible that your reading of it would/will be completely different than mine. It will/would have complete integrity. That's how you'll come to reach a defensible position. Until then, stay tuned....
Well, Conrad, you can't really talk about something you haven't read, can you?
Nothing elitist about me--I'm not a member of any elites. Just a bloke expressing opinions.
I've felt this way about Merwin's work for 40 years, and his election to the Laureate-ship didn't change anything for me. I don't think he's a very great poet, and so I'm not in favor of his election. He's probably a very nice fellow, in person. Why not appoint Robert Bly?--he'd certainly shake things up, and he has all the credentials anyone would need for the post.
By the way, why do you keep calling Merwin "Erwin"?
You seem to object to the colloquial or casual nature of Merwin's verse, Sir F? In some sense I agree (tho' poet I'm not...), but maybe it's a type of...praxis, deliberately simple, post-modernist something or another. He's a buddhist supposedly ... Merwin. it's like....therapeutic, Sir F. defeating the enemy by karmic kindness, man (at least until they behead you)
Oops!
Sorry about that. An unintentional error. My apologies to Mr. Merwin
well
as Stone Girl so
frequently has intimated:
"I have noh-thing to say and
spend all of my time say
-ing it. KISS ME!"
(what IS the score here? Love/Forty? or Forty/Love?)
last time that I went down to The Library of Congress (to "pop in" on the Poet Lawreate was Bill Stafford and
as I grew up a (in D.C.) near there (7 th Street N.E. between F & G
he was very tickled to get out of that office wayyyyyyy up in the top and
walk mabout D.C. Many years after this I checked one of his books written the poems in while he was in D.C. AND
D I G THIS there were a couple of poems ABOUT his/this walk-about!
now that I am almost 70
I think that I will "drop in" on Merwin... maybe take him over to Union Station and show him how "they" are destroying D.C.
maybe we can change the motto on our $100 bill:
from "In God We Trust" to
"Fuck For The Buck"
(can 'you' say
'fuck' on a blog?)
especially when used in a contextual me:ander?
Oddly enough, I just stumbled upon an article by Simon Jarvis on "why rhyme pleases" -
http://www.thinkingverse.com/Simon Jarvis, Why rhyme pleases.pdf
i can forgive him for not stopping writing after The Lice, although he could have without diminishing his total accomplishment very much. it is a great book, & does have force behind its sometimes blurry words. but who among us is willing to quit just because we are no longer in a furor about something?
writing poems is, besides communication, also a habit.
m.
Post a Comment