W.H. Auden

Elizabeth Bishop

Wallace Stevens

Autobiography:Down To the Map

I Believe

triangle

 

  ABBY MILLAGER: ESSAYS

 

bunny shroom white

 

  Thoughts on Auden... September 1, 1939 to September 11, 2001  


            W. H. Auden is one of the twentieth century’s best known poets. A master of poetic technique, he wrote in many different forms, bridging the gaps between classical, modern and contemporary verse. Apart from poetry, he produced fiction, essays, dramas, and even a libretto. His work has influenced that of numerous contemporary poets-- John Ashbery, for example. Clearly, Auden is one of our great poets. Why then, don’t I love his poems?

            Certainly, many aspects of his work I do admire. “September 1, 1939” is a masterpiece, which in the current atmosphere of national panic and upheaval seems prophetically and eerily apt, with its mention of “blind skyscrapers” using “their full height to proclaim the strength of Collective Man”. I cannot read this piece now without a twisting of the gut. Here is what is great about Auden: logic, clever juxtaposition of ideas and words, analysis, all proclaimed in a form simultaneously familiar and innovative. The structure of this poem is unusual and appropriate; at once ceremonial, yet unsettling—it has a consistent trimetrical rhythm, with many end rhymes, but the rhymes are randomly placed within the nine-line stanzas and a few of the lines don’t rhyme with any other lines, or are off-rhymes. This irregularity within a controlled framework seems to represent the poet’s struggle to retain control under the circumstances, i.e. impending war.

            Another approach that works well within the context of this poem is Auden’s placement of personal and lofty statements side by side. He says, “I sit in one of the dives” and, “Waves of anger and fear/Circulate over the bright/And darkened lands of the earth/Obsessing our private lives”. Again, one gets a sense of struggle over control, as feelings fly about and must be reined in. He gives a formal, Biblical, paradoxical flavor to the earth (“bright and darkened lands“,) which is in contrast to the modern and matter-of-fact “dives” and “private lives”. A momentous occasion has invaded our everyday; Auden makes us feel our place in history. The wording of “The unmentionable odour of death/Offends the September night” suggests the speaker is trying to distance himself from events too awful to face directly—it is the night that is offended by the stench, not himself--yet at the same time he feels it his duty to break with convention and speak of the unspeakable. If not the poet, who else?

            The second and third stanzas go about doing the work we all attempt when bad things happen: trying to figure outwhy. This is human nature. Auden looks to history for answers. Again he contrasts the lofty, what “accurate scholarship can unearth”, with the lowbrow, “what all schoolchildren learn”, and determines them to be in accordance—there is nothing new under the sun. On the one hand, understanding the cyclical nature of grief and pain is comforting: people have lived through bad times before and therefore will again. On the other hand, it is alarming—we will never be rid of evil. This message is even more poignant from our present point of view, one or two onslaughts after Auden wrote this poem.

            What I admire most, perhaps, in Auden’s work is his pithiness.  Lines like “All the conventions conspire”, “From the conservative dark/ into the ethical life”, and “All I have is a voice/ to undo the folded lie” mix image and idea brilliantly and carry paragraphs of implication in just a few words. To me, this is the essence of what poets try to do—create bundles of words that are little bombs of meaning.

            If so much is great about this poetry, what is it, then, that puts me off? I’m not entirely sure. I think some of the very features that make a poem like “September 1, 1939” work as a public message, a proclamation, bother me in the context of other poems with what seem to me more personal subjects, but which maintain, inappropriately, I think, the feel of something formal and rhetorical. Auden relaxes this tendency toward loftiness in his later work, and, indeed, often uses this kind of language ironically, because it is funny. Nonetheless, I get tired of it. The twelve-part poem, “Thanksgiving for a Habitat” is an example:

                                    …I, a transplant

from overseas, at last am dominant
over three acres and a blooming
conurbation of country lives,…

Conurbation? And this is followed by reference to “Linnaeus and the Amphibia,” which seems awfully distant when related to the personal subject of home. Even the title of this poem is irritating; one gets the feeling Auden is embarrassed to have written on this subject at all. His high-end diction becomes a stumbling block to intimacy. In “September 1, 1939” Auden says,

What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn

I and the public? If not a member of the public at large, then what is the poet? He has set himself apart, and we feel it in his tone. Since this particular poem is about alienation, and is about the poet as a sort of Cassandra, one speaking out when others have their heads in the sand, this attitude of separateness seems appropriate. But Auden always gives that impression. He distances himself from the reader and, at the same time, from emotion, itself. Look at the conclusion of this poem: “May I….show an affirming flame.” As an appeal to God or whatever, how passionate is that? How many of us would wish, of all things, to show an affirming flame? We might want to burn, or flare, but I don’t think even the genetics of British reticence and understatement can explain away the highly intellectualized and paradoxical frigidity of this phrase, which is almost sweet in its inadequacy. Perhaps that is the point—that any one of us is bound to be inadequate in this situation, and that the poet is showing us how inadequate we all are, even he, himself, who seems to be the only one aware of what is going on. But I don’t think so. I think, to Auden, “show an affirming flame” is a statement of passion, and reflects the maximum emotional heat we may expect from him.  Ever. This lack of emotional intensity or expression (the emotion may well be there, but it is meticulously hidden) is what makes this poetry less moving than it ought to be, given Auden’s unarguable mastery.

 

bunny shroom black

 

  Life’s Marl : the Poetry of Elizabeth Bishop  

            Some poetry, in particular, contemporary work, can’t wait. It whizzes from info-byte to info-byte at the angular speed of drive-thru. Elizabeth Bishop’s writing is the opposite; her world isn’t going anywhere. It sits, like a long-lost hope chest wanting to be opened. With patience and pleasure, Bishop goes through the box and meticulously unwraps whatever she finds, however mundane it seems at first, and speculates upon it, assuming it must have value. After all, someone sometime placed it there. She lays all her treasures out in an organized fashion, as if taking care her heritage may be repackaged exactly as found.

            While close observation, description and carefully chosen particulars—carved in a diction that incorporates easily understood but seldom used words like belvedere, bowsprit, bezel and mattock—do form the basis of her work, Bishop’s poetry is by no means a mere travelogue of images. There is meaning. However, as she says in “Poem,

art “copying from life” and life itself,
life and the memory of it so compressed
they’ve turned into each other. Which is which?

the significance and the detail itself are inseparable, or nearly so. Judgments are either implied by the details, suggested by unexpected lines of questioning, or delivered in some offbeat, facetious-seeming way. Bishop takes joy in the absurd. Her tone is often bemused, though always sympathetic. Nonetheless, hers is a fundamentally serious poetics; there is always a bottom line that matters.

            “At the Fishhouses” illustrates several of the ways Elizabeth Bishop conveys meaning. The first 46 lines are almost pure description. She shows us the sea, the boats, the fishhouses, and the old man with his net, smoking a Lucky. What lies beneath this stunning texture of cleated gangplanks and sequiny herring scales is an homage to the difficult and precarious lives of fishermen who brave this water,

Cold, dark, deep and absolutely clear,
element bearable to no mortal,
to fish and to seals…

The implication that sea creatures are not mortal imparts mystical significance to the poet’s interaction with a seal. However, lest we forget how ridiculous humans really are, Bishop treats us to the absurd but all-too-likely image of herself singing “A Mighty Fortress is Our God” to the dubious beast.  This kind of playfulness is quintessential Bishop. What is also typical of Bishop is that every detail of her poem, no matter how off-the-wall it seems, has been selected purposefully--this particular hymn, for instance. Is not the sea itself like a mighty fortress, and also as mysterious and impenetrable-seeming as God?

            By the end of the poem, the icy water has paradoxically become “a transmutation of fire”,

like what we imagine knowledge to be:
dark, salt, clear, moving, utterly free,
drawn from the cold hard mouth
of the world, derived from the rocky breasts
forever

Bishop has moved from a very skillful description of a fish yard to an examination of the nature of knowledge. In a sense, still waters run deep. Even though at first these poems appear calm, there actually is great movement within them; though they may seem straightforward, they are not.

            In her search for understanding Bishop casts a wide net. As in “Questions of Travel”, she inquires and conjectures in unexpected directions. This poem starts with a statement: “There are too many waterfalls here.” Immediately she has our attention. We love waterfalls; how can there possibly be too many? She doesn’t exactly justify this judgment. She uses it to convey a kind of press, the landscape’s energy which is so vigorous as to be foreign, but which, at the same time, is familiar to those of us who are curious and thereby compelled to travel. The rest of the poem is a tongue-in-cheek devil’s advocacy, asking, Gee, why did we come? Have we done the right thing? in between descriptions of the unusual experiences one could only have away from home. The questions themselves render judgment, in a subtle, genteel Anglo way.

Or could Pascal have been not entirely right
about just sitting quietly in one’s room?

By this time the answer is obvious, but it is this precious phrasing—“not entirely right”—that amuses. It’s as if, with the whole, tortured discussion, Bishop has been poking fun at the sort of person who would obsess over such a silly question. In effect she is poking fun at herself, but she uses the exaggeration at the end to say, But you didn’t really think I was serious, did you?

            Bishop often says one thing and means another. Similarly, she observes one thing and sees another. She has a talent for finding the flipside, for finding order in disorder and beauty in ugliness, or vice versa.  The resulting poetry is always startling; it makes us look at the world in new ways. In “The Bight”, she writes,

Click. Click. Goes the dredge
and brings up a dripping jawful of marl.
All the untidy activity continues,
awful but cheerful.

Life’s marl is the subject of Elizabeth Bishop’s writing; she picks up what is messy, and loves it.  

 

black bunny shroom morphed

 

  The Sound of What is Secret  

            Wallace Stevens labeled the sections of his “Notes Toward a Supreme Fiction” as follows: It Must Be Abstract, It Must Change, and It Must Give Pleasure. These three principles echo like a mantra throughout Stevens’ work, which, in all its nimble mysticism and near-infinite quotability, may be read as a philosophical treatise: one big ars poetica.  In “The Poems of Our Climate,” Stevens reflects—

Clear water in a brilliant bowl, (…)
Pink and white carnations—one desires
So much more than that.

This desire for more, for the nebulous, for what is neither apparent nor clear—possesses this poet, who seeks to point out, uncover, suggest or imply what cannot be implied: the geography of feeling. He will not settle for the commonplace, our perceived reality, but must inhabit a new world, one of ideas, of the mind or, perhaps, a place beyond mind.

            For Stevens, an object is only our perception of it, and as such varies depending on the circumstances of experience. Every reality is observer- dependent; our thinking about an object is what makes it. He writes (“Dry Birds Are Fluttering in Blue Leaves”),

It is never the thing but the version of the thing:
The fragrance of the woman not her self,
Her self in her manner not the solid block.  

This systematic sovereignty of idea over sensorium pervades Stevens’ work. He confounds solid imagery with abstraction, makes the undimensional dimensional, and vice versa. Things are feelings, light is sound, gods grow out of the weather. The effects of this shifted sensibility are startling and disturbing. We, as readers, quickly realize, nothing is to be taken at face value. Everything is metaphor. Nor is this poet content to shoot the breeze with vague or pontifical theorizing. In “Man Carrying Thing” he explains, “The poem must resist intelligence/ Almost successfully.” Almost is the crucial point. Stevens’ ideas may fly around the room, but then he pegs them down with solid detail: rocks, horns, painters; ships, clappers; citrons; hard, dry leaves.  With any kind of abstract writing it is easy to lose the reader. Stevens doesn’t. Which is not to say everything he writes is perfectly understandable. It isn’t, and he wouldn’t want it to be. Nonetheless, it’s easy to keep reading; we don’t lose faith, as with some difficult texts, struggling to make sense of it all.  

            What is it that can keep complex writing from becoming an irritation, too much bother to read? One of the joys of reading Stevens’ work is seeing how much fun he has, manipulating the everyday, sculpting spirit out of space. Stevens wrote, “The whole of appearance is a toy” (“The Dove in the Belly”). He plays with perception on many levels—juggles images, ideas, words and sounds—while using the modulation of thought as both subject and model.

And in the water winding weeds move round.
And there and in another state—the refractions,
The metaphysica, the plastic parts of poems
Crash in the mind—
(“The Glass of Water”)

In this passage, the first two lines represent a charming and straightforward picture. We can feel the meandering swirl of the current in the consonant w’s. We can see the weeds’ angled image as they move above and beneath the surface. Here are sounds and images the reader can latch onto.

            However, in the third line we come to realize none of this is literal, which we really knew all along, since plants don’t grow in glasses of water. But we had let ourselves be seduced by the weeds until Stevens pulled the metaphorical plug by introducing the pivotal notion, refraction. This excellent metaphor for altered perception represents the bending of reality as a kind of visual paradox. We’ve all seen the spoon bent in the glass, so we accept what he’s saying about things not being as they seem. Sort of. And lest we become too frazzled, having to think so hard, Stevens rewards us with another visual byte: “the plastic parts of poems”. This line is funny, partly because of the repeated p sounds and partly because we (I, anyway) have a surreal vision of the printed poem warping on its page. Modern readers also get an image not possibly intended by Stevens, of the poem as an assembly of small, mechanical, brightly colored components, something like a Mousetrap game. Odd, but apt.

            Stevens follows the image of warped poetry with the visceral sonic boom—crash, with the additional peculiarity of it being a crash of ideas. Thus, the poet lures the reader along with various forms of entertainment: sounds, unusual imagery, surprising leaps and paradoxical juxtapositions, couched in a rhapsodic pentameter. He slips his ideas into all of the above—“The essential poem at the centre of things,/ The arias that spiritual fiddlings make” (“A Primitive Like an Orb”). One could argue, with so much else going on, he could be spouting the stock report and we would still want to read it. It’s not that complicated ideas are a difficult pill the poet must somehow hide in applesauce to make the reader swallow. What really works here is the tension—the push and pull between artfulness and mentation, between whimsy and logic, work and play, left brain and right brain. Stevens jumbles it all up so effectively that we lose track of which side we’re on.

            Stevens concludes “The Poems of Our Climate”:

            The imperfect is our paradise.
Note that, in this bitterness, delight,
Since the imperfect is so hot in us,
Lies in flawed words and stubborn sounds.

In other words, perfection is boring. We need conflict, tension, uncertainty. We will not be satisfied by the elimination of loose ends. Neatness is against our nature, does not please us, conjures nothing—forces nothing from the imagination.  

            In contrast, what could be more imaginative than ideas about ideas?

I hear the motions of the spirit and the sound
Of what is secret becomes, for me, a voice
That is my own voice speaking in my ear.
(“Chocorua to its Neighbor”)

Stevens’ is a poetry of ideas, yes, but beyond that, of familiar things we can’t even imagine.

 

bunny shroom white morphed

 

  Autobiography: Down to the Map  

            It is hard to explain your life.  We are papier maché, our memories shredded and bound together by the paste of everything we have forgotten.  I was born in Pennsylvania, not far from the Amish, some miles west of Valley Forge.  What I remember: stone walls, quarries, the overgrown railroad gully behind our house.  Neighborhood kids went tribal in there, with hierarchies and rituals that sometimes sent me racing for the gap in our hedge.  Next day, I always went back. 

            I had no philosophy as a child; perhaps I have none now.  There were things I loved: the wiggly net of sunlight on the shell and starfish bottom of our baby pool, the swish of snowpants, the smell of Play-doh.  I loved our cat’s pretended nonchalance, coiling snake stuck on his tooth.  There were things to be learned.  Look up while you swing, rust gets in your eyes.  Ride your bike down the big hill, you’ll have to walk up it.  Grilled cheese next door is not the grilled cheese of home.

            I was a wanderer.  I crossed Swedesford Road, leaving one blue flip-flop there for my mother to find.  I followed Winding Way to play in the creek.  I loved the gurgle of the water and how the long marsh grass lay in squelchy pillows on the margin.  These excursions were not meant to frighten my parents.  I would forget myself, one foot following the other, then suddenly it would be getting dark, or I would hear my mother calling: time to go home.

            Later, as our entire family reenacted these meanderings, I would remember those first six years as a kind of ideal, my normal American life.  After two years outside Washington, D.C., my father, through a series of accidents, signed on with the U. N.  We all remember the job offer: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.  We had to drag out the atlas, the one I could barely lift.  Sure, what the heck.  My parents were wanderers too.  

            Thus began the rest of my childhood: seven schools, five countries, four continents, and the Caribbean.  We would get someplace, live in a hotel or a rented apartment while my parents found us a car, a house, a school.  They were always much quicker about the school than I wanted.  In Addis Ababa, we first lived in the Ghion Hotel, which had a rose garden, a swimming pool with cloudy green water and diving platforms, and across the street, the emperor’s stables.  Despite not drinking the water or eating the salad, the four of us immediately came down with the runs and spent the first week feverish, chugging Kaopectate and fighting over the john in our hotel room.  But the bidet was interesting, as were the people outside, who looked different and spoke a kind of fascinating gibberish.  Three schools later, my sister and I, now 9 and 14, were taking ourselves to lunch at the Chinese restaurant during our two hour lunch breaks from the French school (Lycée Gebre Mariam Franco-Ethiopien), and occasionally getting ourselves home in taxis—tiny blue Fiats whose ripped up seats we shared with other passengers: smelly old men, ladies in bright white shammas, brown and white chickens in handmade coops.  The drivers turned their engines off downhill to save on gas. 

            We lived in a modern, Italian-built house, which also had a bidet, and a fence with spikes.  Ponies were cheap so we each had one, except my mother who abstained because of some prior unpleasantness involving her big toe and a horse named Patricia.  After school my sister and I would ride down the street to the British Embassy paddock, where we were tolerated and even became fixtures, though Bar and Moreno once accidentally tried to jump a wire fence and went sprawling into a garden party of visiting MP’s.  My best friend, Christina Hoskens, lived at the embassy.  She and I spent hours replaying reel-type audio tapes of Camelot, My Fair Lady and Thoroughly Modern Millie, and making up shows and dances to go with them.  We cloned our paper dolls—we each had fifty.  We made jumps and tack for all our stuffed animals, with leather from a bag of scraps Christina had.  We put on massive horse shows, like the Badminton Horse Trials she’d seen on TV.

            And then I’d go home, trying to keep my pony from bolting for his dinner along the road’s eroding shoulder, trying to keep him from being spooked by the herders’ whips and the sheep and the goats, and the boys running and the men calling to each other while taking a whizz in the drainage ditch, or the pairs of women like oil pumps alternately beating Tef into flour, plunging the ends of short poles into hollowed out stumps.  It might be starting to rain, sounding like beans on the tin roofs, fly-strips squirming in the doorways of the one-room rectangular mud houses, the air thick with smoke and smells of berbere, sewage and burning eucalyptus.  We’d sidestep the rewinding of a shawl, cross the street away from the Tej house men as they emerged heavy-footed and foul-mouthed, and at last be home, safe inside the gates. 

            Sometimes on the way back from school my mother would stop to get bread.  After the first time, we refused to get out with her.  As soon as the car slowed, school-aged boys in rags surrounded us.  My mother was terrified she would hit one of them while parking.  When she got out they would be on her, “Madam, Madam, Madam”.  After awhile she had it down to a system: she always bought a big bag of extra rolls in the bakery.  On the way back to the car she handed those out.  When they were gone, that was it.  She got in the car and we drove away.   Often, while we were waiting for her, young boys would lead lepers and blindmen up to the car and tap on the glass.  We could see the white film over the blindmen’s eyes, the gaps in the lepers’ noses, the dirty bandages covering the stubs of their fingers.  We saw these things, but we never spoke of them.  Except once, I remember, my mother said: when you stop seeing, it’s time to go home.

            In all of this, was I writing?  Not exactly.  Was I reading?  Yes and no.  Our house was literate.  My parents met as scholarship students at Cornell.  The earliest books I remember were hardcover: a fat Mother Goose, which I memorized completely; and a children’s anthology of my father’s from the twenties, with marvelous art deco woodcuts.  In that book Cinderella was tall, with tiny bows and flounces and gobs of pearls draped all over her hair, dangling from her tiny fingers.  She was incredible; Disney had it all wrong.  I also loved Dr. Seuss, how sound and rhyme took over.  I’m pretty sure I learned to read from The Foot Book, The Eye Book and The Cat in the Hat

            I was never a bookworm—that was my sister.  I hated her wanting to read rather than play with me, but I reaped the benefits.  I would be playing Kerplunk with myself, and Bar would yell, Mom, what does ____ mean?   I soaked up the answers—vocabulary by osmosis.  Later, when we were going to school in French, my parents bought books for me to read in English so I wouldn’t be behind when I went back to school in the States.  Happy or sad to say, I skipped grades three and four in the American system, and when I returned it was as if I had never been gone, except that after two years in the French school I was way ahead in math.  Of course, I did almost have a nervous breakdown in the French school.  This, it turns out, is not uncommon.  I locked myself in the bathroom at home, refused to come out for school, and threatened to climb down the downspout if anyone tried to come in (which I wasn’t serious about, since anyone could see it wasn’t attached to the wall very well.)  My dad had to brave our principal, Monsieur le Directeur, and ask if I couldn’t please be in a different class. 

            After that I was pretty happy.  We had a reading book called L’Ile Rose, which was fairly imaginative as reading books go.  I memorized “A la claire fontaine” and “La biche brâme au claire de lune, et pleure à se fondre ses yeux.” At the English School (which we attended briefly) I had memorized Walter de la Mare’s, “I heard a horseman ride over the hill”.  I was building up a repertoire.  In about fifth grade I added some Ogden Nash—“The Time to Tickle a Lizard” and the poem that begins, “One thing I like less than most things is sitting in a dentist’s chair with my mouth wide open”.  Okay, not high art, but poetry just the same. 

            It was around sixth grade when I finally started to write.  We had a school anthology of short stories, which included “The Bottle Imp,” “The Most Dangerous Game,” “The Ransom of Red Chief” and several tales by Poe.  What I loved about these stories was the sense of danger, the alternate worlds you entered when you read them, and the surprise endings.  I started writing short stories.  At first, my parents were encouraging, though my mother did caution me about how hard it is to make a living as a writer. (She said the same thing about acting.)  My stories got more and more graphic.  Finally I showed my parents a story about a bullfight, in which the bull did significant detailed goring.  That was it— shock and horror!  My mother said, “You can’t write that!”  I got the message and quit writing then and there.

            At least, I quit showing grownups anything I wrote.  In junior high I loved musicals.  We were living in Nairobi then, so there weren’t many to see, but we went to whatever there was.  I saw Hello Dolly, Godspell, Jesus Christ Superstar, Genesis, and The Dream (a musical version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream.)  My twin best friends and I wrote a musical comedy of our own called Backstage, with a revolving set so you could see the play within the play alternately with the shenanigans going on behind the scenes.  We never finished it but at one point had about twenty typed pages.  At the same time, I was reading whatever I could get my hands on at home: Vanity Fair, 1984, Jane Eyre, Shaw and Shakespeare, plus bestsellers like Papillon, A Clockwork Orange and The Spy Who Came In from the Cold.

            Later, when my family moved to Vienna, culture-starved as we were after six years in East Africa, we overdosed on opera and concerts, Strauss and Mozart, not to mention schnitzel and schlag.  We could walk to the Kunst Museum, with its plaza of bullet-riddled shrubbery, where Bar and I spent hours staring at the Breughels.  We saw the Klimts at the Belvedere, admired the gilt of Schönbrunn.  But despite all its treasures, the Vienna of the 70’s was not a happy city.  Old ladies scowled at us in parks.  There were no old men.  We weren’t sure where the young people were. 

            I finished 8th grade at the Vienna International School.  The only good thing about that was our class trip to Moscow and Leningrad.  Imagine two busloads of children who had grown up during the cold war, raised on Spy vs. Spy, Boris and Natasha, “We three kings of orient are/trying to smoke a Russian cigar/ it was loaded/ and exploded”, suddenly dropped into Moscow.  These were children of diplomats, some, no doubt, children of spies.  We had a blast searching our rooms for bugs, yelling obscenities into the chandeliers and flowerpots.  We were thoroughly obnoxious and will never forget it.  Oh, and the sightseeing was interesting too.  Ironically, as little as I was paying attention, this trip must have affected me.  In high school and college I studied Russian.  I met my husband in Russian class and in 1995 returned, with him, to Russia to adopt our son.

            So what did all this childhood travel do to me?  I learned sounds, and I became rootless.  After eight years overseas I could identify many foreign languages on hearing them spoken.  I was used to all kinds of accents in English, and would imitate them.  I had learned the nuances of French vowels, the Amharic “ts” and clicking “k”, the Swahili “ng”, the Austrian “ch”.  I made friends from all over.  I lost them.  By the time we got to Bangkok, even though I worked with Thais in the biochemistry labs at Mahidol University, I am ashamed to say I made no effort to learn the language.  I was burnt out; what was the point?  The people I was working with all spoke English and I’d be leaving soon anyhow. 

            Yet in spite of my eventual sense of drift, I had absorbed the landscapes.  On the one hand, flamingos and mudflats at Lake Abbayata, subterranean stone churches at Lalibela, the view of Mt. Kenya from the Aberdare hills, Masai standing on one leg in the Serengeti plains, Mt. Kilimanjaro, and the ubiquitous Rift Valley; on the other hand, the Alps, the rust-colored clay of the black forest floor, cobbles at the Spanish Riding School, Berggasse—Freud’s old street.  Cane fields of Barbados, saronged women gliding up Mandalay Hill, and saffron-robed monks and rank canals of Bangkok stick in my head.   When I think of these scenes, I ache.  These places are burned into my circuitry; the nostalgia can be overwhelming.  I have not been back.  For one thing, I haven’t had the chance.  For another, I know things won’t be the same.  Still, I would like to show my children places I come from.

            In a wise attempt to provide some stability, my parents sent me to boarding school from ninth grade on.  Many find living away from home at that age unsettling.  I was relieved to know I would be in the same school for four whole years.  It was at Northfield Mount Hermon that I learned to think.  Teachers can make such a difference in your life.  I had the idea that I wanted to be an engineer, perhaps because my father had an engineering degree, perhaps because science was difficult.  I took the nastiest math and physics courses I could find.  It was always a relief to get to English class, where there were more girls and fewer calculators.  Audrey Sheats was my English teacher for two years.  She was eccentric but she knew how to make you see the layers within the layers.  She had us reading The Sound and the Fury in tenth grade.  Later we combed through King Lear, then went to see it at the Boston Rep.  She always seemed to know what I was trying to say, and didn’t let sloppy work slide by.  I remember, one time she wrote on one of my papers: Use your power.  What was that supposed to mean?  I wasn’t sure, but it seemed important.  The woman was clairvoyant.  As a senior, I was awarded the prize for excellence in writing.  The book she picked out to give me for the award was a copy of T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land in facsimile, with Ezra Pound’s notes. 

            So off I went to Yale, and did I study writing?  Of course, not; I majored in Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry.  I thought I wanted to be a doctor because a) I could, b) I wanted to make a living and c) I thought I should want to help people.  I had known for a long time that writing wasn’t a viable option, so it didn’t even occur to me to try that.  I slogged through mouse lab and frog lab, and later (in medical school) dog lab, bloodstains of countless beasts coloring my conscience.  I disliked most of the courses in my major.  What I loved was what seemed the most frivolous subject possible: art history.  I will never forget Vincent Scully whacking at the projection screen with his six-foot pointer, manic over Queen Hatshepsut’s tomb or the elongated proportions of Chartres.  I wrote papers on early American silverware, Manet’s Argenteuil and paintings by Sargent.  Then I went to medical school.

            For some reason I had the idea there was art in medicine.  Perhaps, at some level, there is.  Physiology, how things work in your body, is amazing.  Anatomy is interesting, too, though disgusting.  Pathology is a puzzle, trying to guess what ailed former owners of formalinized organs in plastic buckets.  There is a whole planet inside us we walk around with, not even knowing.  Even its images—MRI’s, microscope slides, freeze-fractured electron micrographs—are beautiful.  The first two years of medical school were completely focused.  I read nothing but medical texts.  There is a kind of joy in absorbing huge amounts of information in a very short time, sort of like eating an entire bag of Oreos.  (The skill to do so served me well later when I wanted to bone up on gardening—I memorized perennials in about a week.) 

            It was in the third year, when we actually had to see patients, that I started having second thoughts.  I should have known, the day the Welch-Allyn rep handed out the otoscopes, it wasn’t going to work out.  Most students were swaggering around with their newly engraved doctor bags, pinning their name tags onto their white coats, playing with their tuning forks.   I felt like an idiot.  It wasn’t the patients—they were fine.  It was the responsibility and the hours and no chance to do anything creative that eventually got to me.  From the beginning, though, I felt peculiar trying to pass for a doctor.  It seemed ludicrous, which it was at first: we didn’t know anything and the patients could smell it.  But even after I’d graduated I felt like a sham in that white coat.  Still, I’d invested so much in getting that far, I kept going through the motions, getting more and more numb.  I could see, watching my teachers, that contrary to popular belief, the life of a doctor is not that much better than internship.  The early rounds, emergencies and nights on call continue indefinitely.  One day, exhausted, I sat by as my patient’s heart monitor displayed a short run of ventricular tachycardia, a potentially fatal arrhythmia.  Alarms should have been going off in my head.  Instead I just stared—felt nothing.  It was horrifying; I knew I should do something but I was paralyzed.  My mother’s words came back to me: when you stop seeing, it’s time to go home.  So I went.  Though not right away; my residency director said he’d sue me if I didn’t finish out the year.  Before I left I told one of the cardiology fellows I wanted to write.  Just don’t write one of those books about how bad internship is, he said.  I haven’t.  Yet.

            In July of 1989, I went home, got pregnant, and started writing.  I planted a huge, unmanageable garden.  I painted.  I cooked.  All that backlogged will to create took over.  I have never been so relieved in all my life.  People (though never doctors) ask, do you miss medicine?  I walk into the medical center, see the hunched figures in the cafeteria where I take my children to play with the frozen yogurt machines, and thank God or whatever that I am free to go.  That place is a prison. 

            The joy of art, on the other hand, is that it is voluntary—the purest expression of freedom, choice.  Take it or leave it.  For those who choose it, or allow themselves to be chosen by it, it is a way of extending the spirit outward to encompass others, of sharing internal workings, saying the unsayable, triggering feeling.  We have names for emotions, but emotions cannot fit neatly into their name-boxes.  Feelings are amorphous, no two alike; they occur in fluid combination, run together like dye.  Art steps in where language fails.

            If language is incapable of conveying the nuances of the heart, how can we expect to make art from words?  We move the words from the dictionary into the studio.  Poetry is the most intense, concentrated form of writing.  In some ways it combines all other forms of art.  We produce images with the spontaneity of watercolor, the deliberate layering of oil.  The white space—literally, on the page, and figuratively, what we don’t say—is critical.  There is sound, silence, rhythm, the movement of dance.  As with acting, we project a personality, from the printed page and from our performance of the work.  The piece is a mosaic, a code: we present a few details, and from this small sampling the listener must come to a place, maybe not even the place we intended, but some place new and interesting.   It is a strange kind of map, the map of our thinking. 

            I once took an interest inventory test.  The result was that I should be either a cartographer, or an entertainer.  How convenient, as a poet I can be both.

 

bunny shroom white

 

  (I Can't Believe NPR Didn't Pick This)
 

            I BELIEVE in the influence of peripheral thinking.I believe in the oblique more than the direct. How the doe picks her way through woods, compassless. How the misplaced fact won’t come until we let it go. We must relax the search.It is like calling a cat. You have to squat and face away, awkwardly, fiddle with a twig or a blade of grass, maybe hum a little tune but for God’s sake DO NOT LOOK AT THAT CAT! Then, only then, will the animal come. It will purr and wind itself around you.

            I believe in exerting the ordinary power of the soul. For some people, certain fervors are natural. As for others, they seal themselves in the lining of perpetual doing. We must practice awareness. This is neither an active nor a passive practice; it is an unmoving alertness, isometric. It is existing in The Zone. Which means, this state possesses your entire body EVENLY. It does not concentrate itself inside your brain.

            Sometimes, the human brain is the enemy. I mean conscious thought. Will. Logic. Analysis. Thinking can be a lightbulb in a darkroom. Switch it on and it overexposes all the film—every other impulse, feeling, basic knowledge, understanding, connection, is annihilated in one over-bright flash. Certain light pollutes. It spreads unchecked if you let it. Many people claim to believe what someone else tells them to. I do not understand this. How can mind alone decide belief? The path to the spirit is ancient and winding. I can only believe what my heart resolves is true.

            Blinkers serve a purpose: Safety. I’m sick of Safety! Safety’s why certain children never cross the street. Safety’s why the very PTO that built it tears down a wooden Kids’ Kingdom—with ramparts, turrets, amphitheater, dungeons and slides—and hangs plastic swings instead. A mare’s eyes look out from the sides of her head for a reason. Yes, to see directly before or behind, she needs to fold her neck. But most of the time, in nature, those locations are irrelevant. What concerns her most is what’s coming at her right here, right now, and that’s how it should be.

 



bee