• Email
  • Single Page
  • Print

Are These the Poems to Remember?

vendler_1-112411.jpg
Topham/The Image Works
Attending a reception for Edith and Osbert Sitwell (seated at center) are, clockwise from top right, W.H. Auden, Elizabeth Bishop, Marianne Moore, Delmore Schwartz, Randall Jarrell, Charles Henri Ford, William Rose Benet, Stephen Spender, Marya Zaturenska, Horace Gregory, Tennessee Williams, Richard Eberhart, Gore Vidal, and Jose Garcia Villa, Gotham Book Mart, New York City, November 9, 1948

Twentieth-century American poetry has been one of the glories of modern literature. The most significant names and texts are known worldwide: T.S. Eliot, Robert Frost, William Carlos Williams, Wallace Stevens, Marianne Moore, Hart Crane, Robert Lowell, John Berryman, Elizabeth Bishop (and some would include Ezra Pound). Rita Dove, a recent poet laureate (1993–1995), has decided, in her new anthology of poetry of the past century, to shift the balance, introducing more black poets and giving them significant amounts of space, in some cases more space than is given to better-known authors. These writers are included in some cases for their representative themes rather than their style. Dove is at pains to include angry outbursts as well as artistically ambitious meditations.

Multicultural inclusiveness prevails: some 175 poets are represented. No century in the evolution of poetry in English ever had 175 poets worth reading, so why are we being asked to sample so many poets of little or no lasting value? Anthologists may now be extending a too general welcome. Selectivity has been condemned as “elitism,” and a hundred flowers are invited to bloom. People who wouldn’t be able to take on the long-term commitment of a novel find a longed-for release in writing a poem. And it seems rude to denigrate the heartfelt lines of people moved to verse. It is popular to say (and it is in part true) that in literary matters tastes differ, and that every critic can be wrong. But there is a certain objectivity bestowed by the mere passage of time, and its sifting of wheat from chaff: Which of Dove’s 175 poets will have staying power, and which will seep back into the archives of sociology?

Anthologies are wonderful for the young: a single page catches fire, and a new attachment—sometimes a lifelong one—takes hold. And since space is limited, the famous poems understandably end up being the chosen ones: for Robert Hayden, “Mourning Poem for the Queen of Sunday,” “Those Winter Sundays,” “Frederick Douglass,” and “Middle Passage”; for Robert Lowell, “‘To Speak of Woe That Is in Marriage,’” “Skunk Hour,” and “For the Union Dead”; for Marianne Moore, “The Fish” and “Poetry.” Coming as a young person to this anthology, I would have loved finding such poems. But I would still have been hungry for more than the six pages here of Wallace Stevens, more than the single poem by James Merrill.

Dove not only decides for many, rather than few, poets. She also decides (except in certain obligatory moments) for the more “accessible” portions of modern lyric. Not to be “accessible” is now to be chastised. Perhaps Dove’s two years as poet laureate helped foster the impression that poetry should be written in “plain American that cats and dogs can read” (Moore, satirizing English views of America). But a poem can communicate while it is still imperfectly understood (said Coleridge), and Dove trusts her readers less than she might.

Perhaps Dove is envisaging an audience who would be put off by a complex text. So she chooses to represent Wallace Stevens by five plain-voiced poems from his first book, Harmonium (1923), and one short posthumously published poem (1957), skipping more than thirty years of Stevens’s powerfully influential writing. Did Dove feel that only these poems would be graspable by the audience she wishes to reach? Or is it that she admires Stevens less than she admires Melvin Tolson, who receives fourteen pages to Stevens’s six? Or is it that she believes that Stevens has had more than enough exposure, and that he doesn’t really need any more? If so, what are we to make of the inclusion of “The Waste Land” (shorn of notes and footnotes), the most overexposed (if also the most defining) poem of the American twentieth century? And if the aim is to present “accessible” poems, surely “The Waste Land” is anything but. Dove is willing to grant thirteen pages to John Ashbery’s long “Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror,” which is not particularly “accessible” either. From these choices no principle of selection emerges. Dove’s brief and unsatisfactory reference to her choices goes as follows:

Although I have tried to be objective, the contents are, of course, a reflection of my sensibilities; I leave it to the reader to detect those subconscious obsessions and quirks as well as the inevitable lacunae resulting from buried antipathies and inadvertent ignorance. In anticipation of the naysayers, all I can say in my defense is: I have tried my best.

I wish Dove had directly addressed the hard questions of choice in her breezy chronological introduction, with its uneasy mix of potted history (in a nod to “context”) and peculiar judgments. She denigrates Frost’s “Design” and “Acquainted with the Night,” for instance, as “blunt and somewhat smug,” calls Eliot “a sourpuss retreating behind the weathered marble of the Church,” and says that Elizabeth Bishop “somehow managed to chisel the universe into pixilated uncertainties.” Merrill, whose “formal verse placed him squarely on the side of the poetry establishment,” is said to have shed “the jeweled carapaces of formalism in favor of the rules of the Ouija board.” Can Dove think that a poet of Merrill’s depth can be confined to the putative space of a vague “poetry establishment,” or that placing poets on one side or another of such an assumed “establishment” says anything about their abilities? And as a poet herself, she must know better than to refer metaphorically to formal verses as “jeweled carapaces”: carapaces belong, after all, to insects and tortoises. Such cartoonish remarks are not helpful to the understanding of poetry.

When Dove is not sympathetic to a given poet, her remarks on the poetry itself can be misleading. Her portrait of Stevens gives us a tepid and boring writer:

[Stevens] exhibited none of the anxiety modernism often engendered; rather than fret over the lack of objective reality, Stevens championed “the supreme fiction” of the mind, content to walk to work every day, write his poems, and savor “the music of what happens.”

Has she read Stevens on tragedy?

It leaps through us, through all our heavens leaps,
Extinguishing our planets, one by one,
Leaving, of where we were and looked, of where

We knew each other and of each other thought,
A shivering residue, chilled and foregone.

Is this spoken by a man without anxiety, who does not “fret,” who is content with savoring “the music of what happens”? Or—to give another example—has Dove read Stevens on marriage, as he looks back on it in old age?


The meeting at noon at the edge of the field seems like

An invention, an embrace between one desperate clod
And another in a fantastic consciousness,
In a queer assertion of humanity.

And sometimes one wonders whether Dove is being hasty. She speaks, for instance, of “the cacophony of urban life on Hart Crane’s bridge.” But the bridge in his “Proem” exhibits no noisy “cacophony”; its panorama is a silent one. The seagull flies over it; the madman noiselessly leaps from “the speechless caravan” into the water; its cables breathe the North Atlantic; the traffic lights condense eternity as they skim the bridge’s curve, which resembles a “sigh of stars”; the speaker watches in silence under the shadow of the pier; and the bridge vaults the sea. The automatic—and not apt—association of an urban scene with noise has generated Dove’s “cacophony.”

The simplest thing to say about Dove’s introduction is that she is writing in a genre not her own; she is a poet, not an essayist, and, uncomfortable in the essayist’s role, she strains for effects (alliteration the favorite) on the one hand and, on the other, falls into mere boilerplate. Before returning to her individual judgments, I want to look at the large outlines of her introduction, which suffers from a simplified history in which epochs have to be accorded a yes and a no, a plus here, a minus there. Treating the beginning of the twentieth century, Dove offers stereotypes and clichés as she lifts the curtain, revealing

defeated but defiant former Confederates, victorious but insecure Northerners,…freedmen struggling to create an identity,…waves of immigrants…[who] brought their own cultural riches to the mix, but also their social and economic traumata…. As the new century dawned, many citizens who could afford a little wiggle room were motivated to start afresh, do things differently, embrace the new.

How did they start? Afresh. How did they do things? Differently. What did they embrace? The new. Even our own uncertain present is evoked with platitudes: we are

bombarded…by the multifarious, conflicting verities advanced by our ever-present audiovisual media. We must remember, however, that until the advent of television, news arrived through narrow, privileged channels.

Has Dove forgotten the wide channels of newspapers, tabloids, magazines, weekly newsreels, and radio (the latter two available to the illiterate)? Well before the advent of widespread television, the Forties were full of the energetic public dissemination of news by all the mass media named above: How long did it take for the news of Pearl Harbor to spread? Or the news of the death of Roosevelt?

When we arrive at the history characterizing the Harlem Renaissance, Dove is exclusively enthusiastic:

A taste of economic independence, a ready-made community built upon shared experiences, songs, and sorrows—the combination was joyous, galvanizing, and irresistible…. Buoyed by racial pride,…[black artists] felt empowered to explore all aspects of their humanity, no longer locked into the roles of militant or minstrel.

The “ready-made community” was not happy to see Langston Hughes describing in print its pimps and prostitutes and faithless husbands; nor was Hughes himself happy even in this “joyous, galvanizing, and irresistible” moment. Disheartened with American racism, he hoped briefly for a better life in Russia under communism, but (still a Communist sympathizer) returned in disillusion from Russia to Harlem. Nor was Hughes able to join in any “community” with his closeted homosexual fellow writers Alain Locke and Countee Cullen. The many painful complexities of the events and personalities (black and white) of the Harlem Renaissance are lost in the cheery picture transmitted by Dove.

Her sketch of Fifties America is no less drawn to cliché, as is her idealistic vision of democratic forefathers, (slaveholders, many of them):

It’s hard to imagine what a jolt Ginsberg’s Howl gave to the self-satisfied fifties, with broadcast series like Father Knows Best crooning peace and prosperity while GIs died in Korea and McCarthyism mocked the forefathers’ democratic ideals.

As we approach Dove’s own half of the century, her judgments are no less questionable:

Every soup gets cold, however, and by the time the Beat poets were losing verbal steam, their take-no-prisoners approach had cleared a trail for the Confessionals…. The cost of [the Confessionals’] personal exposure was high. Both Sexton and Plath killed themselves…. In the end [John Berryman], too, could no longer resist the Grim Reaper.
  • Email
  • Single Page
  • Print