Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
The Poem Not the Poet: Revised
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

The Poem Not the Poet: Revised


Published on

What follows is a revised chapter of a book I wrote on the poetry of Roger White(1929-1993). …

What follows is a revised chapter of a book I wrote on the poetry of Roger White(1929-1993).
I'm sure White felt about his future biography somewhat the way Mark Twain felt about Shakespeare's biography: "an Eiffel tower of artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and thin foundation of inconsequential facts, a fifty-seven foot high brontosaurus that looks convincing enough in the natural history museum but is made of six hundred barrels of plaster of Paris and maybe only 'nine old bones.'"

He saw his daily life as biographically uninteresting but his readers find his imaginative life intense, fascinating. I have, therefore, stood as far back from the facts of this poet’s life and instead concentrated on the enduring qualities of the man's writing. This was a much more challenging task for any critic with literary pretensions, with aspirations to be the best wordsmith he can be.

I was reminded of the words of that famous American poet Robert Frost who said: ‘It would be hard to gather biography from poems of mine except as they were all written by the same person, out of the same general region north of Boston, and out of the same books.’ Frost’s biographers, who began their collective labours well before he died, were not to be put off by such a statement, and the early collections of memoirs and reminiscences culminated in Lawrance Thompson’s three-volume biography published between 1966 and 1976. Frost had only been gone for three years when that first volume was published.

Published in: Education

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. (ii) THE POEM NOT THE POET Roger White would have liked George Bernard Shaw's views on biography. The facts of writers' lives, wrote Shaw, have no more to do with their writing ability than the shape of their nose. White used to quote Rabindranath Tagore on this biographical theme: 'the poem not the poet,' as Tagore put the theme succinctly. White felt that his life was, to use Shaw's words, biographically uninteresting. I don't think, though, that White's life, among those lives of the other minor poets to whose ranks he himself claimed to belong, could be said to be so unvarying and, therefore, so uninteresting. Still, I take White's point and I think readers need to be conscious of the problem of writing a biography of a writer's life. Flaubert’s life, for example, in the senses that normally interest biographers, amounts to little. 1
  • 2. Compared, say, with the life of Balzac or Hugo or Rimbaud, there isn’t really much of a story in the life of Flaubert, and White would have said the same about his life, although I don't think he would have put it so graphically and with the obsessiveness that characterized Flaubert's literary preoccupations: "May I die like a dog," he wrote to du Camp, "rather than try to rush through even one sentence before it is properly ripe." White did not want to diminish his work by restoring it to the particularities of what he felt was his mundane biographical context. And so there is little here of what that significant biographer and poet in our early modern period, Samuel Johnson, referred to as "domestic privacies" and "the minute details of daily life."1 The jacket flap of The Oxford Companion to 20th-Century Poetry in English edited by Ian Hamilton launched into the following trumpeted conclusion, that ‘20th-century poets have lived far from humdrum lives’: 1 Samuel Johnson in Justin Kaplan, "The Real Life," Studies in Biography, Harvard UP, Cambridge, Mass., 1978, p.1. 2
  • 3. Twenty-seven of the poets in this collection published in 1994 had nervous breakdowns, 19 served time in jail, 14 died in battle, three were murdered, one executed. One played hockey for his country. There were 15 suicides, and one poet who staged his own death only to reappear, still writing poetry, under a new name. “This is a first run-through of poetry since 1900,” writes poetry critic Helen Vendler in her review of this anthology. “In 2500 AD, if the world is still here and publishers are still sponsoring surveys”, writes Vendler, “the 1500 poets included in this volume will have shrunk to about fifty.” The small ‘mob of gentlemen who wrote with ease’ in the 20 century has now swollen to a throng of men and women who write with intent. This reader, at least, shrinks before the sheer weight of publication represented by these 1500 writers of verse in this 1994 anthology. Now, in cyberspace, there is an avalanche. I'm sure White felt about his future biography somewhat the way Mark Twain felt about Shakespeare's biography: "an Eiffel tower of artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and thin foundation of inconsequential facts, a fifty-seven foot high brontosaurus that looks 3
  • 4. convincing enough in the natural history museum but is made of six hundred barrels of plaster of Paris and maybe only 'nine old bones.'"th He saw his daily life as biographically uninteresting but his readers find his imaginative life intense, fascinating. I have, therefore, stood as far back from the facts of this poet’s life and instead concentrated on the enduring qualities of the man's writing. This was a much more challenging task for any critic with literary pretensions, with aspirations to be the best wordsmith he can be. I was reminded of the words of that famous American poet Robert Frost who said: ‘It would be hard to gather biography from poems of mine except as they were all written by the same person, out of the same general region north of Boston, and out of the same books.’ Frost’s biographers, who began their collective labours well before he died, were not to be put off by such a statement, and the early collections of memoirs and reminiscences culminated in Lawrance Thompson’s three-volume biography published between 1966 and th Justin Kaplan, op.cit., p.5. 4
  • 5. 1976. Frost had only been gone for three years when that first volume was published. Twenty years after the passing of Roger White it would appear that potential biographers, if indeed there are any, have been put off by White’s remarks, among other possible factors. As I add these words a decade after the original published online in 2003, it has been thirty years since white passed away in Canada. Besides my brief biographical summary of his life in this book, no biography has yet appeared on Roger White, and no poet has appeared with Whitew’s genius for words. Although it’s evident that White found his poetry a source of much pleasure, he does not appear to have had Walt Whitman's grandiose sense of destiny and overriding purpose about his poems. His was a more moderate sense of self-worth. But, like W.H. Auden, he was inclined to the view that an artist's private life sheds little light on his works. But like Auden, too, he would have been willing to bend the rule given the right circumstances. Of course, during his life White did not have to fend off biographers standing in line to write his story. 5
  • 6. I certainly don't have enough information about White's life to provide the kind of story White's life deserves, although Anne Gordon Perry(PhD in Aesthetic Studies-Humanities, and teaches at the Art Institute of Dallas)has gathered a collection of White's letters and, if the right circumstances can be arrived at serendipitously and through Perry's insight into that collection, then White lovers will one day be able to read the first stab at a biography of White. 2 The chief source material for biographers is often their subjects' letters 3 or a diary. White was a most prolific letter writer and, for me anyway, his poetry serves as a type of diary. If any biographical skyscraper is to be built on White's land, his letters will provide the architecture, not his poetry in a similar way that Emily Dickinson’s biography was put together long after her death in 1883. But there may be a vexing problem that future editions of White’s work will raise. The problem will not vex White who will, by then, be long gone to that undiscovered country and will therefore have, in all 2 Anne Gordon Perry, Yours, Roger: The Correspondence and Influence of Roger White, unpublished manuscript, 2002. 3 W.H. Auden expresses this view in his introduction to a biography by E.M. Forster of G.L. Dickinson. 6
  • 7. likelihood, little to no concern for what might be called the biographical fallacies of future writers. Our age lives, and future ages will continue to do so, with too much information. If the old biographical fallacy was that the life of the artist is used to interpret his work, the new biographical fallacy results from the impulse to lumber an artist’s work with the detritus, literary and otherwise, of the artist’s life. Correspondence, diaries, jottings, drafts, interviews—the stuff of a life in letters—are piled up for consideration, not just in the relatively circumscribed and wellunderstood havens of biography or critical study, but in published volumes of what is called the author’s work. 11 April Bernard, “A Genius Ill-Served,” The New York Review of Books, 24 March 2011. In Roger White we have a poet who inspired loyalty and affection among both those who knew him in life and those who established a friendship with him, through his poems, both before and after his death. White himself knew about such friendships; he claimed 7
  • 8. Herbert, Dickinson and Eliot among his “favorite” poets, in the sense of his ‘best friends.’ Any reader, scholar, or editor of White’s work is likely to find himself feeling like a friend, in part because of the warmth of his voice and the intimacy of his insights. The danger is that affection for and curiosity about the artist may turn to doting and defensiveness, both of which can overtake scrupulous editorial judgment about what can legitimately be called the artist’s work. Doting on the poet makes every single thing he ever wrote, from jokes to secondary school verses, from business letters to blurbs, seem not only fascinating but “art.” Defensiveness about, for instance, what some impute to be White’s homosexuality---along with a conviction that the only reason he did not publish many poems about some topics was that he was forced by the times into reticence—may make an editor more likely to celebrate as a “poem” some unfinished lines on that subject.1 1 It was not until a decade after White’s passing, for example, that someone wrote to me, as the only writer who had written a study of White’s work, to ask if I could confirm White’s homosexuality. I 8
  • 9. replied by saying that the thought had never occurred to me and I had no evidence to believe anything about his sexual orientation. As far as Roger White’s ultimate place in the canon of poetry written by Baha’is is concerned, one might be tempted to try to augment the size of his body of work with a certain amount of padding. Some future Prose volume, for example, might become burdened by material that is misplaced or simply not first-rate. That White wrote a lot of informal prose has already been clear from his masses of letters, virtually none of which have been published in the nearly two decades since his passing in 1993. The decision, for example, to include all of White’s correspondence with any one of many people to whom he wrote many letters, for example myself, in a sort of biographical interview, is a case in point that could present difficulties. No one would deny that some of his letters to me are interesting, nor that it would be an invaluable resource for any biographical study, but to have nearly fifty pages would scarcely qualify as a good example of White’s finished, 9
  • 10. polished prose. Such is my view and future editors will all have their own views—inevitably. When a writer has produced extraordinary, exquisite personal letters and essays why run the risk of losing sight of that prose achievement by swamping it amid essentially unrevised correspondence? Happily, there would be many wonderful pieces in any review of White’s prose and some editor should make every effort to round it all up. I am only dealing here with hypotheticals. As with so many other troubles besetting literary publishing, the electronic media are forcing changes in attitude and practice. However much one may admire the original democratic spirit animating the proliferation of texts on the Internet, it is hardly a new observation that some terribly important values, having to do with context and selectivity, are being lost. In an age when research libraries devote much of their resources to making everything, including manuscripts, readable online, it seems downright quaint to be complaining about what one impatient undergraduate recently referred to as “page poetry.” 10
  • 11. I would argue that it is precisely on the pages, in the future books that will be published on White and his poetry, where editors and publishers have the ability and the obligation to select and to offer context; to say, this is the book of White’s poems; this is a book of his letters; these are his first drafts and discards and used Kleenex, which the writer entrusted to his estate to place in a research library for the use of scholars. Literary critic, J.V. Cunningham, once said of the poet E.A. Robinson that he was "a man almost without biography." The famous poet, Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986), persuaded his readers that he, too, was a writer without a biography. He used to write that nothing more important than reading a line of Shakespeare happened to him. In the end, though, he expressed the view that the forms that a writer traces in his work compose his true face. I think White would have been inclined to agree with Borges vis-à-vis his own life. That was the sort of emphasis White wanted to give to his day-to-day life and, more importantly, that was the sort of Sven Birkerts, "An Artificial Wilderness: Essays on Twentieth Century Literature," Magill's Literary Annual: Books of 1987, Vol.1, p.68. 11
  • 12. emphasis he wanted his readers to give to it. I address myself to some extent to what White saw as his quiet and uneventful life, 4 to the events behind his character and personality and to the tough fiber that was his life as a writer. I hope that readers will like and respect White more, find him clearer as a human being, as a result of the glimpse I have provided into his life story and his poetry. I hope, in the process, to deepen the understanding of White's art, for it is in his art that the greatness lies.5 But my purpose is not, in the main, to correct or refine taste, as T.S. Eliot said was the purpose of the literary theorist. 6 Nor is my purpose to provide evidence for a thesis. What I write issues out of the pleasure I take in reading White's poetry and the belief that, as Robert Hayden once put it, "Poetry does make something happen, for it changes sensibility." Such change, incontrovertibly spiritual in nature, is the prerequisite for any transformation in the objective, quotidian world.7 I hope I bring to this exercise what the true father of English practical criticism John Dryden(1631-1700) said was the 4 The life of a writer is often uniform and uneventful due to the fact that the profession of writing obliges the writer to devote a certain number of hours a day to his work. Somerset Maugham makes this comment in his 10 Novels and Their Authors(Mercury Books, London, 1963(1954), p.133. 5 Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays, Princeton UP, Princeton NJ, 1973(1957), p.27. "The real concern of the evaluating critic," writes Frye, "is with…the greatness…the genuineness of the poem, rather than the greatness of its author." We are presented, he goes on, "with a vision, not of the personal greatness of the poet, but of something impersonal and far greater."(p.94). 6 T.S. Eliot in English Poetry, Leone Vivante, Southern Illinois UP, Carbondale, 1963(1950), p.v. 7 Robert Hayden in Frederick Glaysher, "Literature's Cracked Mirror," World Order, Spring 1983, p.47. 12
  • 13. "primary qualification of the good practical critic-the ability to read the work under consideration with full and sympathetic understanding."8 I hope that I also bring a secondary qualification to my critic's role, a qualification which Dryden thought was important for any critic to possess; namely, the ability to communicate my relish and enjoyment of White's work and thereby help the reader enjoy his poetry in a similar vein. It is difficult, though, to rationally explain the effect of a poem on one's mind and emotions; I always find my comments on White's poems never quite explain my experience of them. Good literary criticism of poetry, wrote George Saintsbury back at the turn of the twentieth century, is "as delightful as (one) can find in any department of belles lettres."9 I hope readers will find these essays a delight. It is rare to find two critics liking the same things for the same reasons. Diversity of selection and interpretation is the norm. But insofar as White's inner world is concerned, a world largely inaccessible to biographers except through speculation, it is my view 8 David Daiches, Critical Approaches to Literature, 2nd edition, Longman, London, 1981(1956), P.183. 9 George Saintsbury, A History of English Criticism, William Blackwood and Sons Ltd., London, 1911, p.477. 13
  • 14. that White's poetry comes closest to revealing its true nature. Of course, letters can be very useful in revealing the nature of a person's inner life and I leave that to Perry, as I indicated above. Mark Twain expressed some of my skepticism regarding the extent to which a person's outer life, their actions and their conversation are a revelation of their true nature. Twain says they are just "the clothes and buttons of the man." Twain continued: "What a wee little part of a person's life are his acts and words! His real life is led in his head and is known to none but himself. All day long, and every day, the mill of his brain is grinding, and his thoughts, not those other things, are his history. His acts and his words are merely the visible, thin crust of his world, and they are so trifling a part of his bulk….The mass of him is hidden." Twain expatiates at great length on this theme and it reminds me in some ways of what has become an oft'-quoted passage of Shoghi Effendi: 14
  • 15. "One thing and only one thing will unfailingly and alone secure the undoubted triumph of this sacred Cause, namely, the extent to which our own inner life and private character mirror forth in their manifold aspects the splendour of those eternal principles proclaimed by Baha'u'llah."10 Perhaps the real person is quintessentially a mystery. If so, my intention is to explore that mystery through White's poetry. My focus is not on some complex of internal and self-referential relations, some theory of psychoanalysis. I'm not trying to focus my gaze on the inaccessible inner reaches of the authorial psyche. I'm not trying to get inside White's head. I try to understand White the man in a way he wanted to be understood: through his poetry. For the most part, I leave to biographers the question of the poet's character formation and the peculiarities of his personality as they take shape over a lifetime. I hope in the process to give White what Auden said "every author hopes to receive from posterity--a hope usually disappointed-justice."11 10 Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p.66. 11 W.H. Auden in Edward Mendelson, "Authorized Biography and Its Discontents," Studies in Biography, Daniel Aaron, editor, Harvard UP, Cambridge, Mass., 1978, p.26. 15
  • 16. White's life may have been much like Jane Austen's novels: nothing much happens but you eagerly turn the page of his literary life waiting for what happens next. For the drama of White's life was in some ways like Lord Acton's, only on a different scale. That drama was a drama of ideas. Just as Acton's life illustrates the influence that powerful minds, past and present, exerted over his development, 12 so does White's, only in his case the powerful minds were those of two manifestations of God and Their chosen successors who passed by before and during his lifetime, and some very impressive individuals in the first century and a half of the religion he became associated with in his late teens. The whole of creation, Baha'u'llah writes, "was revolutionized and all that are in the heavens and on the earth were stirred to the depths." 13 In 1921 T.S. Eliot expressed this change as a 'dissociation of sensibility.'14 Others have called it a paradigm shift. Society has not recovered; indeed, the tempest is still with us. For this writer, White 12 John Clive, "English 'Cliographers,'" Studies in Biography, Daniel Aaron, editor, Harvard UP, Cambridge Mass., 1978, p.29. 13 Baha'u'llah, Prayers and Meditations, Baha'I Pub. Trust, Wilmette, Illinois, 1969, p.295. 14 T.S. Eliot in A Mirror For Modern Scholars, L.A. Beaucline, editor, Odyssey Press, 1966, p.268. 16
  • 17. is but one of the multitude of manifestations of this quite complex and profound shift, as it was expressed in poetry, 15 in the early epochs of the Formative Age and, in particular, the tenth stage of history when the charismatic Force that gave birth to the Baha'i Faith was fully institutionalized.16 I see myself very much like the type of literary critic that Eliot calls 'the advocate:' to help readers find merit in what they once overlooked, to find charm in what may have been first experienced as a certain tedium vitae or boredom, to remind others that there is a depth there in White's poetry that simply must be tapped and simply to express my gratitude to White, posthumously, on behalf of many of the lovers of White's poetry. There are no explicit canons of criticism. What is needed is a meeting of the author's intention and the critic's appreciation. "Worthwhile criticism," writes Herbert Read, has as its basis "pathos, sympathy and empathy."17 To some extent, too, this commentary is a by-product of my own creative activity. 15 Literary historians point to the first two decades of the twentieth century as the beginning of this paradigm shift in poetry, particularly in the works of Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot. 16 Copy of talk given in Chicago in 1953 on behalf of Shoghi Effendi outlining, among other things, the ten stages of history. 17 Herbert Read, Poetry and Experience, Vision Press, London, 1967, p.9. 17
  • 18. As 'Abdu'l-Baha said many times, the reality of man is his thought and it is White's thought that this book is devoted to, for the most part. Here is White's thinking talking to you. I hope that the reason readers want to know more about White's life is that they care for his poetry and are interested in his thinking. If former American poet laureate Robert Pinsky is right about what constitutes good poetry over poetry that is dross, namely, that it will admit abstract statement, 18 then White's poems are good ones. They certainly tell you what he is thinking with a fair portion of abstract thought. They also, or so it seems to me, spread an imaginative solitude that, as Oscar Wilde once wrote, "works best in silence and in isolation."19 I am more than a little aware that almost the last thing most people come to poetry for is literary criticism. Indeed, I am sure that many would agree with Wordsworth that the writers of literary criticism "while they prosecute their inglorious employment, cannot be supposed to be in a state of mind very favourable for being affected 18 Robert Pinsky in Jonathan Holden, Style and Authenticity in Postmodern Poetry, University of Michigan Press, Columbia, 1986, p.50. 19 Oscar Wilde in Essays By Oscar Wilde, editor: Hesketh Pearson, Libraries Press, Freeport, NY, 1972(1950), p. 104. 18
  • 19. by the inner influences of a thing so pure as genuine poetry." 20 Of course, Wordsworth regarded the critical power very low, infinitely lower than the creative power that produces poetry. And he was also sensitive to the damaging effect of false and malicious criticism. This was the source, writes Arnold, of his exaggerated and negative view of criticism. My own feeling is that creative activity, in most forms, is invaluable and one form, like criticism, is neither higher nor lower in rank, than the writing of poetry. I have difficulty going as far as Oscar Wilde who saw criticism as demanding "infinitely more cultivation than creation"21 and more creativity than the creative arts of poetry and literature since criticism was, to him, "the purest form of personal impression."22 Wilde also saw criticism as "the record of one's own soul" and as "the only civilized form of autobiography." 23 Criticism was in its essence purely subjective. This may be why I have been attracted in recent years to a critique of White's poetry because it allows me to deepen a literary process I began, myself, some twenty 20 Matthew Arnold, Lectures and Essays in Criticism, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1981(1956), p.259. 21 Oscar Wilde, op.cit., p.123. 22 Oscar Wilde, op.cit., p.132. 23 idem 19
  • 20. years ago but which ran dry in the channels of narrative autobiography. Wilde writes that through criticism "the picture becomes more wonderful to us than it really is, and reveals to us a secret of which, in truth, it knows nothing."24 Such is the paradox of criticism as Wilde sees it. The poetry critic examines the poetic form and puts into it what he wishes and sees in it what he chooses to see. There is a freshness, a vitality, a provocativeness in Wilde's view of criticism that appeals to me. And I like to think that there is some of Wilde's perspective in my own. “Most literary criticism is ephemeral, too good for wrapping up chips but not worth binding, keeping, annotating or editing,” so wrote Colin Burrow in his review in the London Review of Books Vol. 33 No. 4 · 17 February 2011, of The Works of Samuel Johnson, Vols XXIXXIII: The Lives of the Poets edited by John Middendorf Very little English literary criticism has lasted as long or worn as well as Samuel Johnson’s Lives of the Poets. I do not live in great hopes that my own work will last long and wear well. Johnson’s work 24 Oscar Wilde, op.cit., p.135. 20
  • 21. shaped the canon of English poetry and set the terms for critical discussion of Donne, Milton, Dryden, Swift and Pope over at least two centuries. Johnson, who was 68 and the grand old man of English letters, was asked, for a modest fee of 200 guineas to add value and authority to the enterprise by providing a short preface to each poet’s work. Being short the prefaces would be quick to write. The ‘little lives’, as Johnson called them, rapidly ballooned into little volumes. Concision gave way to curiosity, and curiosity to copiousness. Johnson regarded biography as something closer to conversation than to the accumulation of detail: ‘Lives can only be written from personal knowledge, which is growing every day less, and in a short time is lost for ever.’ The longer it becomes before a biography of White appears, the fewer will be the words from those who once knew White before he died in 1993. I was able to piece together a basic outline of White's life. I sent it to him for his approval two years before he passed away. He made two or three minor corrections of fact and returned it. It was obvious to me that White was disinclined to provide more than he already had 21
  • 22. done about his life. "If you want to know about me, read what I have written," seemed to be his position, his view, on writing about his life. I have done so and enjoyed White's poetry with the relish of a starved palate. Now I hope I can accomplish what the twentieth century's great poetry critic Randall Jarrell said was the critic's aim: "to show to others what the critic saw in what he read."25 Inevitably readers here will be exposed to the defects of my own sensibility, prejudices and idiosyncrasies as they survey a substantial body of my analysis and evaluation of White's poetry. For the most part I do not dwell on the intricacies by which White's mind negotiated with its surroundings to produce what I find deeply satisfying poetry. For the most part I do not occupy myself with the nature of the connection between White's personality and his poetic imagination. I leave that to the more biographically inclined student who, I am confident, will one day arise. I am content to explore the poetry, the world that is contained in White's poetry and its meanings. Even then, I only explore a small 25 Randall Jarrell in "Hunger for Excellence, Awakening Hunger in His Readers: Review of Jarrell's 'The Third Book of Criticism,'" Helen Vendler, January 4, 1970, p.1, Internet. 22
  • 23. part of his oeuvre. Poetry, in some ways, is the attempt to organize through the imposition of language raw human perception, the flux and mass, or should I say mess, of experience. I examine a very small part of White's specific perceptions, specific experience, specific poems and the examination is largely tentative. It is just an initial exploration of the territory. Perhaps it will stimulate others to journey into White's land, to follow his path, to continue beyond an examination which is the first published study in the early stage of what I am confident will become 'the White industry.' In some ways it is through the very incompleteness of White's story that it acquires a certain beauty. It addresses itself not to the faculty of recognition or reason but to the aesthetic sense alone, subordinating them both to a synthetic impression of White's poetic oeuvre. White felt the same way about life so many of us feel as life takes its long mile that it seems to be like a dream and an illusion. For White what came to be living and enduring, a fulfillment of his experience, in some basic ways, was his art, his poetry. It helped to shield him from the sordid perils of actual existence. 23
  • 24. If you had met White at any time in his adult life, say after his marriage in 1954 at the age of twenty-five, the man you would have seen is one that I have only the most vague impression of. It is an impression I have gathered from several photographs and from the several letters I received: a short, slender fellow, thin and bird-like, a serious countenance, a ready smile, a quick-wit. But since I never met Roger White, since I have no observations of others at my fingertips and since White himself wanted me to focus on his poetry what readers have here is poetic evaluation as a type of philosophical activity. It is an activity as Lord Acton once described it: something concerned with "the latent background of conviction, discerning theory and habit, influences of thought and knowledge, of life and descent."26 I find it helpful to be able to connect White's poetry with his life, but I cannot go as far as the literary critic Emilio Roma III who wrote that "a critic will get at the meaning of a poem if and only if he does connect it with the poet's life….he must use this material if he is to be a good critic."27 Neither can I go to the other extreme, as far as Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault as far back as the 1950s 26 Herbert Read, op.cit. p.11. 27 Emilio Roma III "The Scope of the Intentional Fallacy," On Literary Intention: Critical Essays, editor, D. Newton-De Moliria, Edinburgh UP, 1976, p.79. 24
  • 25. and in the United States since the 1970s, where literary criticism has set itself the aim of erasing the author as an entity and "treating the text as a bloodless, authorless orphan." 28 Readers so influenced by this approach to the study of literature in a spirit of aggressive demystification--and I think this approach has its place--will find my approach somewhat "belletristic." But to others, to the community of poets and readers of White's poetry, I hope this community finds what I write an encouragement to take criticism and evaluation of poetry back into their own hands. The study of literature, prose and poetry, does not need to be only arcane and for some literary elite. It can be for everyman and he can still do his gardening, fix the car and watch movies. I like to think White's poetry can and will spread far and wide because, for many, his work is free of that "narrow and dull decorum" with its studied plainness which Robert Breslin saw as having "spread over most, though not all, poetry in America."29 I take some comfort in the words of the nineteenth century English essayist William Hazlitt who thought we could know too much about 28 Richard Tillinghast, Robert Lowell's Life and Work: Damaged Grandeur, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1995, pp.1-2. 29 Robert Breslin in Jonathan Holden, op.cit., p.58. 25
  • 26. a person. Hazlitt wrote that "the more evidence about a person you accumulate the more complex and difficult it is to 'know' someone. Interest and prejudice take away the power of judging, especially of those we love. The harder and longer you look, the more impossible it becomes to attain knowledge of others. Actual qualities do not conform to any factitious standard in the mind but, rest upon their own truth and nature."30 It is difficult, as Virginia Woolf once put it, describing the process of creating biography, to describe some seamless whole around the life of anyone, some "granite-like solidity of truth" and some "rainbow-like intangibility of personality." 31 And so I do not try, nor does White even want us to try. I do not try to portray or to shape White's life; I do not strain to define his identity; I do not describe from the outside some wholeness nor view his life from the inside in all its bits and pieces. I do not run after the unity of White's person. I accept that unity, as Alfred North Whithead expressed it, namely, as an "inescapable fact." I find Whitehead's view of personal unity helpful in connection with whatever remarks I may make about White: 30 Graham Good, William Hazlitt, The Observing Self: Rediscovering the Essay, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1988, pp.82-3. 31 Virginia Woolf in Life into Art: Conversations with Seven Contemporary Biographers, Gail P. Mandell, University of Arkansas Press, London, 1991, p.3. 26
  • 27. "Personal unity is a perplexed and obscure concept. We must conceive it as the receptacle, the foster-mother as I might say, of the becoming of our occasions of experience. This personal identity is the thing which receives all occasions of the man's existence. It is there as a natural matrix for all transitions of life, and is changed and variously figured by the things that enter it; so that it differs in its character at different times. Since it receives all manner of experiences into its own unity, it must itself be bare of all forms. We shall not be far wrong if we describe it as invisible, formless, and all-receptive. It is a locus which persists."32 It is a locus which Oscar Wilde believed is inhabited by "the lives of the dead." The soul that dwells within us, it was his view, is "no single spiritual entity."33 The literary critic Edmund Wilson and others of his school who employ psychology and sociology in their study of literature inform us of the immense complexity and subtlety of the task of relating 32 A.N. Whitehead, "Hanging Up Looking Glasses at Odd Corners," Studies in Biography, Daniel Aaron, editor, Cambridge, Mass., 1978, p.50. 33 Oscar Wilde, op.cit., p. 157. 27
  • 28. writers' lives to their works. The latter, a writer's work, is not simply a variation on the former; each throws light on the other. Wilson prefers to work from the writer's life to his work, but more technical psychological criticism often works the other way. This is not so much of a problem if we know a great deal about a person's life. In the case of White, Wilson and his school are of little help. It is the role of biography to describe the contours of this highly problematic receptacle and in the process portray character, render personality, place the individual in a sequence of culturally patterned relationships. That is not my role. I find that man and milieu, idea and context meet somewhat haphazardly on street corners: in Akka, in Haifa, in Toronto, in Belleville, in Tehran and around the corner from where I live. I am not concerned with where the cameras were pointed, at what the newspapers said, how White might have appeared on TV or on the radio or the contradictions that inevitably arise from the multitude of views that people have of anyone and of White in particular. I am writing about a media event, but it is in the print media. I am not 28
  • 29. trying to transform a selection of ephemeral events and scattered accidents into some fixed documentary with reportorial authority. I am not trying to recreate White, although I must confess to a certain impulse toward elegy, toward commemoration. The fertile, the creative, facts that suggest and engender and that I am after are not in White's life but in his poetry. This is no exercise in 'mere impressionism,' as David Daiches calls the simple setting forth of an autobiographical response in the place of critical assessment of a work, a literary oeuvre.34 Autobiography is not literary evaluation. The biography of a man whose adventures are played out silently under his brain cupola is a literary labour of another order. 35 When a life is not crowded with incident and adventure, when a biographer can not compile external excitements but must rely on inner greatness of spirit and on quite complex phenomena in a man's inner life the challenge facing that biographer is greater. For the complexity of White and the phenomena associated with his poetry resides in factors like: who readers have gradually become by reading his verse; how 34 David Daiches, op.cit., p.269. 35 Charles Baudelaire in "Strangeness and Beauty: An Anthology of Aesthetic Criticism 1840-1910," Vol.1, Ruskin to Swinburne, Cambridge UP, NY, 1983, p.193. 29
  • 30. his communication with readers is achieved; the exuberance of his language and its appeal to our intellect and feelings; and his nonpartisan political poetry which overtly attempts to reveal connections between the feelings-the inner life-of the individual and objective social/historical facts.36 To keep the poet and his poetry together, the doer and the deeds into one sober set of facts, under these conditions, and make it an interesting read for the public is beyond this writer. I do not see my role as an attempt to protect White, now that he has died, from "malice, obtrusive sentiment or vain curiosity," 37 to use the words of one of Thackeray's memorialists; nor is my role to show and tell all. I show and tell very little really of White the man: whatever harmonies and disharmonies there may have been, whatever warts and all he may have had, whatever achievements he may have had while serving on a multitude of committees, assemblies and groups doing a myriad projects, assignments and activities as part of an embryonic Order, as an adolescent, a husband, a single man, a friend, indeed in one of any numbers of roles he had in life. I am not trying to save him for future generations. I am trying to put his poetry in 36 Jonathan Holden defines 'political poetry' this way in his Style and Authenticity, op.cit., p.83. 37 Daniel Aaron, editor, Studies in Biography, Harvard UP, Cambridge, Mass., 1978, p.vii. 30
  • 31. perspective. I am trying to paint a mosaic in which White's poetry, its intimate imagery with so many of the historical landscapes associated with the birth and development of his religion-and ours-coexist as equal expressivities within a pattern. My aim is not to describe or embody in words some personal coherence of White the poet, like a Renaissance painting. If anything my style is more cubist. I come at White from a thousand directions, just brushing his side, touching his hair, taking a furtive look, as I hit his poetry with everything I've got. It's the hit of a baseball out of the ball park or a golf ball on a long putt right into the hole. That is my aim. Sadly I often strike out or settle for an eagle. For I am no professional. I am simply someone who loves White's poetry. And to arrive at what I really believe about his poetry I speak through the lips of thinkers different from myself. For I believe, as Wilde did, that the culture of my times is seen through my analysis and words. And this requires me to go to the words of others for my own understanding and perfecting: to feel myself alive. If I want to acquire the qualities of the Divine I must have contact with divine sources. 31
  • 32. White approved, in the two years immediately before his passing, a collection of a dozen or so essays, essays which focused on his poetry not his life, his words not his life story. Put slightly differently, this same focus on the art not the artist was expressed by George Painter in his biography of Proust. "Tell me anything," Painter wrote, "which I could not find more intensely, acceptably and deeply in Proust's works." Biography would only provide meager details of Proust--and White. In White's poetry the reader can find his personal analysis, his introspective pondering, his inner self. His poetry, he felt, could and should stand on its own. It is the thread joining his life's occasions of experience. It is the way he discovers and clarifies his vision. It is a vision far removed from every tinge of partisanship and politics but "wholly devoted to the interests of all mankind."38 I'd like to say a little more about White's politics. The words of poet Carolyn Forche are useful here. Forche writes that "the quality of a poem is dependent on the quality of its engagement, a high degree of commitment." This is part of what she calls the poet's "ideological stance." The time to determine one's politics is the "whole of one's 38 Shoghi Effendi, Principles of Baha'i Administration, p.24. 32
  • 33. life. We are responsible for the quality of our vision, we have a say in the shaping of our sensibility. In the many thousand daily choices we make, we create ourselves and the voice with which we speak and work."39 This comes close to expressing the type of politics White was concerned with in his poetry. By the time White had become an adult he had been exposed for several years to what was clearly a Baha'i definition of the political. It was concerned with building a new Order and White worked within that Order in different capacities for nearly fifty years. I think it is impossible to get a comprehensive, a coherent picture of White from his poetry.40 With some people, usually writers, there is a tendency to describe and record everything in their lives. This tendency gives a biographer a fighting chance. Virginia Woolf and Bertrand Russell were two such people. White did not put it all down. He put 'the love and madness of life,' 41 as Woolf called life's travail and adventure, into his poetry. But I do not attempt to knot up the 39 Carolyn Forche in Jonathan Holden, op.cit., p.75. 40 After more than fifty years of critical analysis of the poetry of T.S. Eliot Robert H. Canary(T.S. Eliot: The Poet and His Critics, American Library Association, Chicago, 1982, p.2.) a coherent picture of arguably the greatest twentieth century poet is not available. 41 Ray Monk, Bertrand Russell: The Spirit of Solitude, Vintage, London, 1997, p.xvii. 33
  • 34. incoherencies of White's life into some theoretical coherence. This is no psychoanalytic exercise, however probing it may try to be. White knew and experienced a great deal but I approach this knowledge, this experience, through his poetry, not through what happened to him. If readers want an entertaining yarn about an interesting Baha'i who lived in the last half of the twentieth century, they must go elsewhere. White kept no diary and so we do not have a detailed picture of his life, what Stendal called the "excessive pile of I's and Me's.' 42 Prose was not a sufficient vehicle for White, although he certainly made use of it in his letters and in his craft as editor. The miraculous gift that makes an artist, a poet, remains a mystery, however near he may be brought to us by our need to understand him and his work. 43 His poetry, though, belongs to all lovers and appreciators of literature, whoever and wherever they are, even if the best critics of poetry are the poets as Seneca argued two thousand years ago and as T.S. Eliot stated the case in our own time. There is a basic unity to White's work, a unity that is difficult to define, except to say that White gives 42 Stendal in Desperate Storytelling, Roger Solomon, University of Georgia Press, London, 1981, p.42. 43 See The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. XXI(19271931), The Hogarth Press Ltd., London, 1961, p.211. 34
  • 35. us Life itself, the Word and the World seen from a particular point of view by a North American Baha'i during the second, third and fourth epochs of the Formative Age.44 Poetry critic George Saintsbury refers to the "infinite manifestations" of poetry's "Grand Style" which he defines as "the treatment of a serious subject with simplicity." 45 White certainly does this and, I would add, White's work is free of affectation which is fatal to any Grand Style and any pretensions to understanding.46 Readers will find here in these essays a personal, unsystematic, eclectic kind of criticism, creating as it moves, a tone and an atmosphere, that reflects in various ways the special qualities of Roger White and his writing as well as my own qualities, preferences and prejudices. I do not try to demonstrate with analytic precision the presence of any given quality in White's poetry; I respond to the achieved work rather than engaging in some technical demonstration.47 I like to think there is an atmosphere in this book of 44 1944-1963, 1963-1986, 1986-2001: 2nd, 3rd and 4th epochs, respectively. 45 George Saintsbury, A History of English Criticism, William Blackwood and Sons Ltd., London, 1911, p.477. 46 Shoghi Effendi states(Universal House of Justice Letter, February 10th 1980) that believers "must eschew affectation and imitation, for every man of understanding will instantly detect their loathsome odour." 47 David Daiches discusses this type of literary criticism in his Critical Approaches to Literature, 2nd edition, Longman, London, 1981(1956), p.286. 35
  • 36. a small library-study, for that is where I've done all my writing. The chairs are comfortable, the walls lined with books, some Bach or Beethoven is playing. I, like White, "Draw my chair beside the fire and/Gather silence to me./I wind my thoughts in knotless skein,/Unspoken mile by mile,-/A league from immortality/Lay down my wool and smile."48 And, in the process, I draw closer to Emily Dickinson in White's poetic evocation The Figure in White; or perhaps I draw closer to myself. White was more than ready to respond to an analysis of his poetry written by others, even though he himself wrote little about his own life and little about his poetry. The essays which I wrote and sent to him about his life and his poetry were returned quickly with the occasional comment and a general appreciation and enthusiasm for what I had written. A dozen years later, in 2002, I revised these essays. It is these revisions which appear in this book. The result of this playing down of the biographical was that I never felt I was living in White's skin, only in his poetry and in the wonder of consciousness that emanated from his mind. In my essays I try to emphasize 48 Roger White, One Bird One Cage One Flight, pp.82-3. 36
  • 37. understanding White's poetry and to avoid the danger of slipping into endless explanation. Criticism in literature is not a science, however theoretically based it may be. There are no established canons or standards of criticism today as the Greeks once developed in the fourth century BC in Aristotle's Poetics. I try not to overemphasize enjoyment and the impressionistic and so avoid making poetry a mere amusement and pastime. There's a balance, I think, between the overlapping categories of understanding and enjoyment, analysis and impressionistic response. I trust I have preserved the balance, one that is often defined in our culture as that between entertainment and education. It seems to me there is an essential key, though, to the deeper understanding of a man's poetry to be found in his life, in spite of what White says. I toy with that key in this book while accepting the premise of Carlyle's biographer Froude that "every person is a mystery even to those closest to him."49 I have never written to anyone who responded with such haste to my letters. These were the last days before e-mail began to move communications electronically faster than a speeding bullet. 49 Daniel Aaron, op.cit., p.vii. 37 His
  • 38. correspondence was humorous and engaging. One of the affects of his letters was to make me want to dip into his poetry more frequently. As I came to enjoy the man behind the poems, I came to enjoy the poems even more. I never actually met Roger. We exchanged letters for a dozen years: 1981 to 1993, years when his poetry reached out to the wide audience that he enjoyed for the last decade or more of his life. He died in April 1993 at the age of sixty-three. I have included a sample of our correspondence because it tells about the man in a way that his poetry does not. In the main, though, I have left White's correspondence to Anne Gordon Perry whose new book I trust will be on book shelves in the next year or so. The sample of letters I do deal with, though, is partly my concession to the biographical. I also aim to convey some of the joy or delight that is produced by reading White. "Poetry only gives joy," though, writes Herbert Read, "in proportion to the understanding we bring to it and our understanding must be of the most universal and intuitive kind." 50 White was more than a little conscious of what Sir Philip 50 Herbert Read, op.cit., p.35. 38
  • 39. Sidney once called: "man's erected wit and his infected will." 51 His letters, at least the ones I received, are a tribute to his "erected wit." Indeed, given the human propensity and need for, and pleasure taken in, laughter, it will not surprise me if White is remembered more for his wit than his wisdom. For he is par excellence the entertainer. Shelley saw the poet and the man writing the poetry as having two quite different natures. I find that sometimes they blend and sometimes they occupy two quite separate worlds. I can only partly agree with Shelley, but what I do in these essays and what Roger White would have preferred me to do, is to focus on his poetry or, to use Shelley's idiom, I focus on the poet and the poetry not the man. White was only too aware of most people's preferred interest in the man, the personality behind the poetry. He was prepared to admit that biographies were not only inevitable but that they were desirable. But such a concession he would have surrounded with a host of reservations and warnings.52 He would have been the first to admit that biographies are worthy of cultivation because they can enchain 51 Sir Philip Sidney in Virginia Spencer Davidson, "Johnson's Life of Savage," Studies in Biography, Harvard UP, Cambridge, Mass., 1978, p.63. 52 In this respect he was very much like T.S. Eliot. See Robert Canary, op.cit., pp.2-3. 39
  • 40. the heart by their irresistible interest and diffuse instruction by their diversity of form. But 'not about him' he would add, if you gave him the last word. At any rate White would have been pleased with any attempt to discuss intelligently his poetic opus. For he would have agreed with Daiches that "A civilization is judged by its amateurs, by the degree to which intelligent non-experts can discuss with sense and understanding the phenomena of their culture….not too far removed from ordinary readers of literature."53 I wrote the preface to White's last major book of poetry Occasions of Grace(1992). This preface focused on his poetry not his biography. And I do it again, here, in what is a more extensive and, I feel, a more deserving way, a decade after his passing. The timing seems right. The 'White industry' has had a quiet beginning, not an unusual one, though, for a poet. There is not yet a Collected Poems for White. For someone starting out to read, to imagine and meditate upon White's verse, the journey will be demanding. The exercise would be something like setting out to explore the planet. For anyone who is already familiar with some of his poems the new ones and the new 53 David Daiches, op.cit., p.287. 40
  • 41. books of his poetry will fit well into their existing pattern. I have spent years on White's poems, at least twenty, during which I have examined them in some detail, underlining, making notes and watching two of the volumes that I came to cherish gradually fall apart as the binding deteriorated. I hope this time and effort, personal pleasure and profit, will in turn be of use to those who want to know more about White's poetry. For White crystallizes much of the amorphous nature of our existence, not by providing information but by a direct apprehension of the nature of reality and the significance of life. The process by which he achieves this is his style and a certain grace and clarity of performance. In the process he creates his own universe. Occasionally I refer to it as Whiteland. "The point of a biography" writes Ray Monk in a recent biography of Bertrand Russell, "is no more and no less than to understand its subject. But a biography is not a "necessary precondition for understanding a body of work."54 Ray Monk, Shaw and White saw a distinction between life and work. And they would have placed the focus on the work. The work was always there to illumine the life; in 54 Ray Monk, Bertrand Russell: The Spirit of Solitude, Vintage, London, 1997, p.xviii. 41
  • 42. fact the life could not really be understood without understanding the role played in the life and the imagination by the work. And I would add, in conclusion, that the exercise of sympathy on the part of the critic must meet and mingle with White's own predominant passions and concerns in his poetry, in his work, if his intellectual life is to be discerned, if the music of his soul is to be described, as Herder defined poetry.55 I trust that readers will easily detect my sympathy meeting and mingling with White's work in the chapters that lie ahead. My general aim could very well be a motto attributed to T.S. Eliot in his practical criticism and study of poetry: "Study the craft, follow the process and read constructively."56 In doing this in the essays which follow I try to strike a balance between making comments on individual poems and making them on the entire corpus of White's poetry. The extent to which I achieve this balance is the extent to which my own response to the poetry of Roger White is full and complete.57 The analytical criticism and the more intellectual and 55 Herbert Read, op.cit., p.51. 56 Quoted in David Daiches, op.cit., p.288. 57 This view was expressed by literary critic F.R.Leavis in relation to poetry criticism and is quoted in Daiches, op.cit., p.296. 42
  • 43. complicated poetry that developed after world war 1 was part of a major change of taste in poetry. White's poetry is not overly complicated and my criticism is far from the bewildering obscurity of much of contemporary criticism. I trust the reader will find here a moderate middle ground. I would like to add some comments about the role of two famous poetry critics, arguably the two most famous poetry critics, in the last century:60 Randall Jarrell and Helen Vendler. Randall Jarrell(19141965) was an American poet, literary critic, children's author, essayist, novelist, and the 11th Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress, a position that now bears the title Poet Laureate. A poetry critic, says Jarrell, "so far as I can an extremely good reader—one who has learned to show to others what he saw in what he read. He is always many other things too, but these belong to his accident, not his essence. Of course, it is often the accident and not the essence that we read the critic for: pieces of criticism are frequently, though not necessarily, works of art of an odd anomalous kind, and we can sympathize with someone when he says lovingly about a critic, as William Empson says about I. A. Richards, that we 43
  • 44. get more from him when he's wrong than we do from other people when they're right."61 But Jarrell knew that living with critics and the over-pervasive presence of what today's entertainment industry would call product was not all beer and skittles. Critics . . . are often useful and wonderful and a joy to have around the house; but they're the bane of our age, because our age so fantastically overestimates their importance and so willingly forsakes the works they are writing about for them. We are brought into the world by specialists, borne out of it by specialists: more and more people think the critic an indispensable middle man between writer and reader, and would no more read a book alone, if they could help it, than have a baby alone. . . .62 and . . . Real criticism demands not only unusual human qualities but an unusual combination and application of these: it is no wonder that even real critics are just critics, most of the time. So much of our society is based, necessarily, on lies, equivocations, glossings-over; a real critic, about part of this society, tries to tell only the truth. When it is a pleasant truth—and it often is—reader and writer and critic are a joy to one another; but when the critic comes to the reader's house and tells him causelessly and senselessly and heartlessly, that the book he is married to isn't everything she should be—ah, then it's a different affair!63 These are the words from a writer who Robert Lowell called "the last of our great poetry critics."64 44
  • 45. Vendler has written books on Emily Dickinson, W. B. Yeats, Wallace Stevens, John Keats, and Seamus Heaney. She has been a professor of English at Harvard University since 1980. I want to add some reflections on, and of, these two critics and commentators on poetry. I do this because in this book I am both critic and commentator. I want to set my remarks, my role, to some extent, in the context of these two fine writers, perhaps the finest poetry critics in my lifetime, at least in the western intellectual tradition which I inherited and am a part of—even as the emerging planetary civilization and its vast literature increases with every passing day. In writing these reflections, I first want to draw on a review in the London Review of Books by James Wood(1965- ) an English literary critic, essayist and novelist. Wood has been Professor of the Practice of Literary Criticism at Harvard University. He is, or rather was, also a staff writer at The New Yorker magazine. He is among the most influential of the popular figures in American letters. Wood writes that Vendler “has the power to steal poets and enslave them in her personal canon. For this she is squeezed between rival statements of 45
  • 46. condescension. Theorists pity her comprehensibility, while in creative writing departments poets denounce her ‘tyranny’, her ‘narrow aesthetic’, her ‘conservatism’”. That both writers and academics complain about her is testament to her influence and gentle longevity – she is the most powerful poetry critic in America since Randall Jarrell. She started reviewing in 1966, a year after Jarrell’s death, when the Massachusetts Review asked her to write a journal of the year’s work in poetry. Like Jarrell, she has a large historical reach while seeming to prefer the present to all other ages. Like Jarrell, she seems to have some kind of generative magic. 62 & 63 64 In James Rother, op.cit. Quoted in John P. Sisk, "Some Observations for Our Time," a review of Randall Jarrell's A Sad heart at the Supermarket, in The New York Times, 6 May 1962. The poets she celebrates prosper, as if they do not want to obstruct her predictions. For Jarrell, these poets were his contemporaries – Lowell, Moore, Bishop, Berryman and Stevens. When Jarrell writes that he is living in a time of great poetry, it is as if he is not merely 46
  • 47. describing but claiming something. Vendler’s belief in her contemporaries – that, as she has put it, ‘American poetry remains in good hands’ – is more modest. But as with Jarrell, these hands are hers as well as the hands of ‘her’ poets. She has created the taste by which many of these poets are enjoyed, returning repeatedly, as in these three books, to polish a group of them with her calm, uncreased prose: John Ashbery, James Merrill, A.R. Ammons, Amy Clampitt, Charles Simic, Dave Smith, Seamus Heaney, Louise Glück, Jorie Graham and Rita Dove. Vendler is in love with the lyric, indeed so in love with it that she befriends strangers who appear to resemble it: in her collection of review-essays, Soul Says, she converts all her chosen subjects into writers of lyric poetry even when some of them, as in the case of Charles Simic’s jagged narratives or Donald Davie’s complaints, refuse the lyric. In her Introduction to Soul Says, she celebrates the lyric as a kind of charmed quarantine. It is a place where ‘the details associated with a socially specified self’ are stripped away. The ‘all- 47
  • 48. purpose pronouns “I” and “You” ’, which are the counters of the traditional lyric, are spaces for immediate free occupation. Readers go to novels, Vendler suggests, to inhabit socially-specific selves; but lyric is the home of the soul, ‘the self when it is alone with itself’. The characteristics of the lyric she defines as ‘spontaneity, intensity, circumstantiality; a sudden freeze-frame of disturbance, awakening, pang; an urgent and inviting rhythm ... compression’. The lyric, for Vendler, functions as a place where incompatibilities are smoothed into mystery. Her notion of it is Romantic, and much of her taste in poetry is Romantic. Coleridge’s formula for the ‘Imagination’ proposes a similarly privileged daze, a state of arrest in which there will be ‘a balance or reconcilement of opposite or discordant qualities: of sameness with difference ... a more than usual state of emotion with more than usual order.’ The lyric also stands as an emblem of the mystery of aesthetic success itself. Vendler’s belief that aesthetic success is mysterious but knowable infuriates those theorists for whom it is neither. In her last collection 48
  • 49. of journalism, The Music of What Happens, she argued that criticism was not chiefly concerned with interpretation or ideology, but with ‘the question of aesthetic success’: It is impossible, of course, to name a single set of defining characteristics that will discriminate an aesthetic object from one that does not exert aesthetic power, but that is no reason to deny the existence of aesthetic power and aesthetic response ... And no other category (‘the rhetorically complex’, ‘the philosophically interesting’, ‘the overdetermined’, ‘the well structured’ and so on) can be usefully substituted for the category ‘the aesthetic’. 60 James Wood, “Charmed Quarantine,” in the London Review of Books, Vol. 18 No. 6 · 21 March 1996. Wood reviews the following books: Soul Says: On Recent Poetry by Helen Vendler, Harvard UP, June 1995; The Breaking of Style: Hopkins, Heaney, Graham by Helen Vendler, Harvard UP, January 1996; and The Given and the Made: Strategies of Poetic Redefinition by Helen Vendler, Faber, April 1995. 61 Quoted in "Randall Jarrell's Poetry and the Age(1953): A Retrospective Review," James Rother, Contemporary Poetry Review, 2001. 49
  • 50. There is another poet-writer whom I would like to add here. It is a poet whom Roger White would be in great sympathy with insofar as his de-emphasis on biography is concerned. It is everywhere apparent in a book written by John Ashbery, Other Traditions(Harvard, 2000) that Ashbery would like nothing better than to discredit the prevalent theory that a poet's work can be illuminated by access to biography. Ashbery deliberately, perhaps even perversely, chose six poets in this short work of some 150 pages to which I have just referred. They are on the borderline between obscure and completely obscure, as far as what is known about their day-to-day lives. Their work has at one time or another been long out of print or even lost. All six of the poets Ashbery has selected have lead very unconventional lives, to say the least. It is Ashbery's perserverance, in dusting off and making sense of the sacrifices they had to make just in order to continue to write, and the exertions he had to make in order to unearth their writing, and gain poetic pleasure from it, that forms the connective tissue of this book. Ashbery has been tireless in his quest to find, read and plumb for understanding and illumination 50
  • 51. the complete works of these poets, and that kind of dedication can only be explained by a very sweet biological impulse on his part to serve, protect and preserve. If we pay close attention to the Ashbery methods of discovery and determination in pursuit of these poets and their work, work that he claims has meant a great deal to his own, Other Traditions can be read, perhaps against its author's wishes, as a primer on how to identify poetic obscurity, and, even better, how to defeat it for profit and pleasure. "I can only hope," Ashbery declares disingenuously in the very first chapter, "that the relative unfamiliarity of most of these poets and the fact that most haven't received enormous attention from critics will be a sufficient reason for reading this book." I could very easily say the same thing about Roger White who came and went on the Baha’i literary scene for perhaps 15 short years and was gone. At first glance there wouldn't seem to be much reward available from a study of the six poets in Ashbery’s collection. Thomas 51
  • 52. Lovell Beddoes and Raymond Roussel ended their lives as suicides. Laura Riding impelled herself out of a third story window and became her own evil twin instead of dying. John Clare and David Schubert spent years in asylums, or wandering the streets without a penny. The sixth, John Wheelwright, was killed by a drunken driver less than a week after his 43rd birthday. But Ashbery takes great pains to show us that in or out of straightjackets, jails, debtors' prisons, hospitals or strange menageries of lovers, animals and children, and despite poverty, ill health, eccentricity and desperation, all six managed to pack a strange power into their poetry that he is able to recognize and then draw on for his own purposes when, as he disarmingly puts it, "the batteries have run down."61 61 Greg Simon, “John Ashbery and the Poetry of Nothing,” The Salt River Review. Today I discovered in the June 2007 issue of the journal The Quarterly Conversation, a review by Patrick Kurp of Christopher Ricks's book True Friendship: Geoffrey Hill, 52
  • 53. Anthony Hecht and Robert Lowell Under the Sign of Eliot and Pound. Since this review contained some useful comments on the subject of literary criticism I include them here in this chapter which is taking on a much greater ambit that was originally planned, and which is much longer than in its first published edition. Ricks belongs to that elite coterie of critics (Johnson, Coleridge, Eliot, Jarrell, and Kenner) whose work is worthy, like all works of literature, of criticism. Seldom do audacity and humility so charmingly mingle in a critic. Ricks revels in language the way other critics revel in Big Ideas. Ricks fulfils a critic’s highest calling by returning us to a writer’s work with renewed energy and appreciation, and polishing our literary-reading lenses so we can read the familiar anew. I try to do the same. 53
  • 54. 54
  • 55. 55