Tuesday, November 3, 2015

#307




I’ve been laboring for awhile now to determine who the Irish monk with “horns of solid mire” might actually be. I conclude that I don’t know and I will never know. Somebody will explain it to me someday, maybe, and I’ll slap my forehead. But I doubt it. “Horns of solid mire” is such an odd phrase anyway. I don’t think it has to mean anything. It’s mainly there to rhyme with “fire” I’m fairly certain. In fact I’d bet on it. A reader might take it to actually mean something figurative, like the potato famine, or a real person, like Oliver Cromwell, which is a possibility. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that somehow, the Irish people have suffered. Rapacious English powerful people stole their lands, oppressed their Catholic religion, found many novel ways to rob, murder and humiliate the Irish. When millions starved to death due to the potato blight, some English weren’t all that overly concerned about that. When they gained their independence from Great Britain, the crown kept that Northern segment because there were a few too many of the English/Protestant persuasion still there. Much woe came of that. There’s more.

But the Irish endure. “The Irish sky remained fitful & wide / with clouds bright as fire.” It just keeps steady and burning Irish in spite of the historical grand aristocratic English thefts, pillage and famine. Anyway, the poem straightens out in the last two stanzas, moving past the obscure references this poet seems to get a kick out of, and gets to its point. The Irish have suffered, but they endure. Irishly enduring. Green and singing yet.

For an American, that’s an odd thing. Italy, France, Germany—we understand them a bit better. They have deeper roots than us too, but have changed so much that they’re newer. Revolutions, conquerings, coalescences, these have changed them in profound ways. Their assessments of who they are are younger. Ireland, because it was poor and downtrodden, out of the center of the action and out of the limelight, retains an older character, B. claims. America, by comparison is rosy-cheeked and brand spankin’ new. How does one break into this bedrock of a culture even just to find a house? You don’t. You remember that the Irish are also friendly and welcoming. You let them do that for you.

I suspect that Adrienne is Adrienne Rich, who was a great poet in her own right, of course, and who said of B.: “The English (American) language. Who knows entirely what it is? Maybe two men in this decade, Bob Dylan, John Berryman.” Yes, that’s her. Ensconced in solid, long-suffering Ireland, B. looks back to America and to her for support, but knows something else. This place, Ireland, in its solidity and oldness, has bred literary lions: Yeats, Swift, Joyce. He is not of that caliber. And he gets one other thing. They were men. People. They lived actual lives, lives that were from the place they were from. They were attached to Ireland. More than that, they were of Ireland. That was the source of their greatness. They wrote from their attachment to the history, land, people, and thus the grounded, embodied language of Ireland was all theirs, their birthright. As an American, his is an ungrounded language. He certainly didn’t write the language of Oklahoma, not the language of Brooklyn or of Minnesota, but he wrote an insubstantial, flighty, violent polyglot American mélange of a language, the language of Bessie Smith and Shakespeare, of Elmer Fudd and William Butler Yeats, all scumbled together, fragmented, full of loud cracking collisions. His was not an earthy language, not the language of a grounded oldness, and it was not gentle. That’s the lack he’s giving form to in this poem. In humility—an inflected humility to be sure, since there’s always that undertone of contemptible ironic fawning when he does something like this—he bows down to the gravitas that rises in powerful but soft and confident Irish tones from the surroundings he finds himself merely perched upon lightly. He’ll never approach that gravitas as an American, and it’s sobering. Faulkner, Flannery O’Conner, Eudora Welty—they’re Americans who wrote in a place-borne American language. But that’s not B.’s mode. This poem is written not from anything like an ancient national solidity, but from nervousness, anxiety, fear, sorrow, and transatlantic radio waves. (More calmly than at other times, perhaps, but still…) Also, from wonder at finding himself in the midst of something utterly what he was not.

#306




Not a complicated poem, but with a wistful, nostalgic tone that is quite moving. I’m a sucker for nostalgia anyway. The first line about the Danish priest with horns of fire presents a bit of difficulty through obscurity. That’s his image and there’s no telling what it refers to. A B-girl is hired by a bar to mingle with the customers and encourage them to buy drinks. This one ended up extending her professional duties just a bit further. How about that? A moment in a life—half drunk, one of those moments that happened. It was just something that happened at the time; now, it takes on the glow of nostalgia through memory. I was young, once. I got thrown out of a bar. Remember those wonderful days when you were so young and stupid and full of life that you would get thrown out of bars? Man, those were the days. Boy, I was some kinda specimen. That was something. Thrown right out into the street. Flat on my keister.

This was thirty years ago in Dublin, that momentous time when B. had the ambition and the sand to look for Yeats and have tea with him. That was something too. That was at the beginning. Now, he’s back, toward the end. Now, instead of bars and women, there are horses set out to pasture. They’re certainly beautiful, like Kentucky is beautiful with its white board fences and grazing horses. There is a melancholy symbolic peace to images of grazing horses. Not a lot of activity though.

The only other poetic embellishment is the extended metaphor of fire, which builds off the images set up in DS 305. Fire as a metaphor for the progress of life, and as he makes clear, in his youth he burned. Now—embers.

I got thrown out of a bar once. Four Marines, in fatigues, and one of the guys in the group I was with started mouthing off. Shut up, you idiot! These Marines had zero patience with smart-assery from a bunch of dipshit college kids. They came at us, one at a time, and pitched us out the front door like burlap sacks of corn meal off a wagon bed. I was first, half-drunk anyway, ending up tangled around a parking meter, laughing my head off as my friends got tossed one at a time out the front door, landing each one with a thud on the sidewalk. We were profligate with our fuel then, burning it up, bright and hot. That’s what you’re supposed to do with it.

Monday, November 2, 2015

#305




Here’s a great line from a critic, one Anthony Caleshu in response to DS 305: “But by this point in the long poem, the question of identity has been turned upside down once again; Henry is no longer a product of Berryman so much as Berryman has become a product of Henry, the celebrated dummy speaking through the slumped posture of the defeated ventriloquist.” Ouch! That one really hurts, but it’s an apt image, a great image. There wasn’t much of the man left, beaten down by relentless substance abuse, but the isolated, attenuated ability to write was still functioning, like the smile of the Cheshire Cat, and it just kept on talking. The rest of the person was fading.

His writing was working well here though. This poem is fascinating, but it’s shadowy and obscure and needs to be carefully unpacked. To start: A black footed penguin is a pretty standard looking penguin, with a white breast and some complicated black and white patterning, but the white breast of the bird is striking: Pure and white. “Amid infinite quantities of gin,” something arrives “like a guilty bystander.” The gin is a familiar enough reference by now and quite concrete, relatable and specific. Henry has been drinking again. It’s not really possible right away to figure out just what “Henry’s subject” is though. It might be from a dream. It’s either that or some obscure waking life-moment the poet has chiseled out for us. But Mickey Mouse and The Tiger seem pretty concrete: They’re toys on a table. A reference to childhood. Probably his daughter.

But not so fast. “Leaving the ends aft open.” The “aft” is at the rear of a boat, so it’s something trailing or behind. The “ends aft open” almost sounds like an anus. It’s a fairly crass and oblique reference to a child? But “touch the means, / whereby we ripen.” Children cause us to grow up, don’t they? To ripen can be a euphemism for aging, but it could also mean to come into fruition. You can touch it? This thing whereby we ripen? Is it physical, is it associated with a body? You change your infant daughter’s diapers. You touch her, wipe her bottom, and wash her in ways that would be unthinkable when she grows up, but with a baby it is all good, natural, appropriate. But it’s still an oblique line. Then there’s this: “Touch by all means the means / whereby we come to life.” This is another oblique line, this time referring to the baby’s mother, his wife, I believe. The reference is subtly sexual. These are references, then, to his family, and they involve the close intimate touching that a father and husband are permitted. But remember, the “subject” doesn’t leave room to ponder those toys on the table, also symbols for the presence of family. Something is afoot, something big. It helps to have the context of the other Dream Songs, which have set up (at least in my reading of them) this tension between life and family on one hand, and work and legacy on the other. The subject is the bright, gleaming penguin-glow of the artistic legacy. “Enduring the manner for the matter.” I think I see it: The manner is the pain of life, or more accurately, the pain of not-life, the pain of drinking, the guilt and shame of guilt and shame, the regret at the time lost, the love not given. The matter?: The work. The manner is the alcohol that fuels the art. The work is the result. You endure the manner for the matter. This is an ars poetica moment. The subject from back in the first stanza is the vocation of the artist.

“I sing quickly, offered Henry, I / sing more quickly.” As we age, our perception of time speeds up. It may only be that any individual increment—an hour, a year—is in smaller and smaller proportion to the total number of those increments we’ve experienced. But this statement is immediately contradicted: “I sing with infinite slowness finite pain.” When I look back at the preceding line, I almost want to understand Henry as saying to the “subject”—his artistic vocation—not “I sing more quickly” but “I will sing more quickly.” Time is running out, the body is giving out and the brain will follow, so I promise, Mr. Vocation, Sir, that I’ll get on the ball. There is still work left to do, I know.

But he’s slowing down. He took care in his work to, by God, lay it all out there. And it hurt. “I sat by fires when I was young.” Fires are where you go to contemplate, and where you tell stories. It’s an opportunity to contemplate life, because the career of a fire is a metaphor for our career through life. It’s young and fragile at first, with all kinds of promise limited only by its fuel, it gets established and roars strongly for awhile, then its fuel is used up and you’re left with powdery grey age and finally, dead ashes. When you’re older, the fire burns more slowly.

This was an obscure and difficult poem to find, but I’m satisfied now that I have it opened up. Caleshu’s remark that I began with now looks snarky as much as anything, but it was clever. He certainly didn’t engage this difficult poem though. Probably wasn’t his purpose. This is a serious—actually, deadly serious—poem, a particularly taut, translucent iteration of a theme The Dream Songs have been delineating from a number of angles recently.

I ran into friend, colleague and poet, Matt, at a party a couple days ago, and he mentioned a story about Berryman. Asked in a televised interview what advice he would give a young poet, B. cocked his head, gathered himself, bore forward and said with a startling intensity, “Love your wife.” (I haven’t tracked down the interview. This is what I remember being told.) But it makes perfect, perfect sense that he might say that. B. was haunted, I fear, by what he had forsaken in his life, what he had chosen to forsake. The ghostly demon of his vocation whispered to him “Thou shalt not love,” and it may quite well be that B. heeded that suggestion more than he should have. It’s maybe one of the saddest things I have ever heard.