SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Blooming Foreigner

BOOKS AND ARTS NOVEMBER 23, 2011

The Blooming Foreigner

“Something Urgent I Have to Say to You”: The Life and Works of William Carlos Williams
By Herbert Leibowitz
(Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 496 pp., $40) 

William Carlos Williams, among the most aggressively American poets since Walt Whitman, was born in Rutherford, New Jersey, in 1883, to a Puerto Rican mother and an English father, neither of whom bothered to become American citizens after their transplantation from the Caribbean to the poisonous industrial marshes west of Manhattan. During his childhood, Bill Williams, whose exotic middle name came from an uncle who practiced medicine in Mayagüez, learned Spanish as his first language and heard French spoken at home, along with his mother’s always hesitant English. Williams was sufficiently assimilated during his long career—he died in his bed in Rutherford in 1963—that Randall Jarrell called him the “America of Poets,” and this is the theme of Herbert Leibowitz’s new biography. Williams wrote about American subjects in American English in homemade American stanzas, and didn’t give a damn about those hoary Old World conventions of meter and rhyme. But his xenophobic friend Ezra Pound, who could smell an alien across a continent or two, was closer to the mark when he called Williams “a blooming foreigner,” and told him that “America interests you as something EXOTIC.”

Williams’s most self-consciously American poems often have some easily overlooked touch of the exotic. His signature poem seems at first glance a snapshot of folksy Americana glimpsed, according to Williams, in the yard of a black man in Rutherford.

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens. 

The splayed words dangle down like a Calder mobile. But it is all inspired by haiku, of course. The word “glazed,” evocative of Japanese lacquer and pottery, gives it away. The slightly arch and alienating effect of dividing “wheel barrow” and “rain water” recalls a pronunciation drill. Now, repeat after me: “rain,” “water,” “rainwater.”

Williams’s mother, Raquel Hélène Rose Hoheb, was the pampered daughter of a slaveholding family of French and Sephardic origin; as a child she had listened to the New Orleans-born virtuoso Louis Moreau Gottschalk play his Creole compositions on the piano in her living room. She studied painting at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris during the 1870s, winning prizes for her dutiful academic compositions. Marooned in Rutherford, a village of five thousand inhabitants, Elena, as she was known, predictably despised the “gross” and “dreadful” culture of the United States. Late in her long life, Elena, who died in 1949 at the age of 102, could still be counted on to strike a defiant pose among the extended family at 9 Ridge Road, as Williams recalled in his Autobiography:

She was almost blind with cataracts, but when I called on her, the room anticipating what was to take place, was intently listening.... Taking her time she delivered, in French, a speech from Corneille ending in the famous curse. Rome enfin que je hais! which left us speechless. All her contempt and even hatred that we had earned in this benighted country through the years was contained in that anathema.

Williams’s father, a perfume salesman, remained an enigma to his two sons. He spent a year in Argentina extending the brand of “Florida Water” while Bill and his younger brother, Edgar, were farmed out to a school in Switzerland. “Literary and even bookish,” as Leibowitz describes him, William George Williams paid for the publication of his older son’s first chapbook of poems in 1909, but doubted their quality. Soon after his father died in 1918, Williams had a nightmare:

I saw him coming down a peculiar flight of exposed steps, steps I have since identified as those before the dais of Pontius Pilate in some well-known painting. But this was in a New York office building, Pop’s office. He was bare-headed and had some business letters in his hand on which he was concentrating as he descended. I noticed him and with joy cried out, “Pop! So, you’re not dead!” But he only looked up at me over his right shoulder and commented severely, “You know all that poetry you’re writing. Well, it’s no good.”

Both sons were drawn to the arts, but chose respectable professions to please their father. Ed was trained as an architect, won the Prix de Rome, and later designed the Donnell Library across the street from the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Bill became a doctor while maintaining, during his education at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, friendships with the aspiring local poets Ezra Pound and H.D. He returned to Rutherford to open a practice as a pediatrician and an obstetrician, writing poems at night.

Leibowitz is convinced, like many commentators before him, that the practice of medicine made Williams a more sympathetic interpreter of humanity. “He brings to bear the same empathic curiosity and indignation that Chekhov brought to the beaten-down peasants he cared for,” he writes. Williams’s empathy, in Leibowitz’s view, was particularly engaged in his obstetric work: “As a doctor who delivered babies, Williams knew women intimately.” All of this may be true in Williams’s case, though it is to be doubted that doctors are on the whole more empathetic than lawyers or insurance salesmen.

BOTH BROTHERS IN their twenties pursued the same Rutherford belle, Charlotte Herman, who had studied piano at the Leipzig Conservatory. When she turned him down, Bill proposed to her eighteen-year-old younger sister, Florence (“Floss”). While Williams traveled to Germany to study new methods in pediatrics, Floss weighed his proposal. When she accepted, he got cold feet; and a few months after the marriage, he tried to engineer an affair with another woman. For Leibowitz, this early vacillation marks the beginning of a disturbing pattern of infidelity and subsequent pleas for forgiveness, symbolically expressed, perhaps, in his famous poem “This Is Just to Say” (“I have eaten/the plums/that were in/the icebox.... Forgive me/they were delicious/so sweet/and so cold.”).

Every marriage is inscrutable. What is striking about the Williams marriage is its longevity and vitality. John Berryman addressed Williams in The Dream Songs: “you had so many girls your life/was a triumph and you loved your one wife.” Leibowitz takes the opposite view, regarding Williams, with his “matinee idol’s handsome face,” as a selfish oaf and Floss as a victim. His view of the marriage extends to his interpretation of individual poems. When Williams writes upbeat poems about sex, such as “Arrival” (“And yet one arrives somehow, finds himself loosening the hooks of/her dress/in a strange bedroom”), Leibowitz assumes they must be about other women. When Williams is more measured, disappointed, or cruel, Leibowitz is convinced that he must be writing about Floss.

The oblique “A Portrait in Greys,” from Williams’s early collection Al Que Quiere!, in 1917, exudes, according to Leibowitz, “a rancid smell of marital misery.”

Will it never be possible
to separate you from your greyness?
Must you be always sinking backward
into your grey-brown landscapes—and trees
always in the distance, always against
a grey sky? 

The poem, with its Whistlerian title, ends with a puzzling image:

I see myself
standing upon your shoulders touching
a grey, broken sky—
but you, weighted down with me,
yet gripping my ankles,—move laboriously on,
where it is level and undisturbed by colors.

Leibowitz assumes that the poem is straight autobiography: Floss is “the good, grey wife” and Williams “mounts [her] like a rider on a beast of burden ... their relationship is a grim burlesque of marital joy or sexual fulfillment.”

But if the poem is really a portrait of a marriage, surely this physically challenging engagement, reminiscent of contortions from Pilobolus, is more ambiguous than Leibowitz suggests. Isn’t it possible that the poem has nothing to say about the Williams marriage, and portrays instead an internal struggle, perhaps Williams’s everyday burdened self wrestling with the claims of the imagination? In a recent analysis, Julio Marzán argues that the two selves in the poem reflect Williams’s divided national identity: “The Anglo American Bill stands on the shoulders of the Spanish American Carlos,” while “Grey” alludes to the Spanish painter—a particular favorite of Williams’s—Juan Gris.

One doubts, in any case, whether Williams could have found a better match. Floss understood his frustrations and brought a sturdy, supportive sense of humor to their sometimes stormy life together. “I have more tolerance of your temperament than most women would have,” she told him candidly. In his late, great love poem “Asphodel, That Greeny Flower,” Williams expressed his gratitude for his long and durable marriage. 

          It has been
                        for you and me
as one who watches a storm
            come in over the water.
                            We have stood
from year to year
            before the spectacle of our lives
                            with joined hands.

Leibowitz, in his prosecutorial way, has persuaded himself that this lovely poem, much admired by poets as diverse as Adrienne Rich and Randall Jarrell, is pocked with insincerity and lies. The passage about watching the storm together is “like the logo for an insurance company,” its verse “hackneyed” and its content “insipid.” The poem was read aloud at Williams’s funeral. The insincerity was apparently not evident to the many poets and friends who attended.
 

"Something Urgent I Have to Say to You,” with its title drawn from “Asphodel,” is both a detailed biography and an ambitious work of literary criticism that covers all of Williams’s key works as well as many of his more obscure productions. Leibowitz thinks that Williams was a bold and careless experimentalist who managed to achieve satisfying poems fairly often. The poems he most admires are those in which Williams combines incisive writing with an embracing and easily apprehended humanism. “He seldom romanticized those considered marginal in American society,” Leibowitz maintains; “he knew their strengths and weaknesses from intimate contact with their woes, physical and emotional, as he knew the inequities of an unacknowledged class system that left the poor living in squalid slums and scrambling to survive.”

Williams’s early poems were crude and derivative. Unlike the precocious Pound, he was slow to identify a form or an idiom that expressed the “urgent” thing he wanted to say. Leibowitz thinks his long apprenticeship ended only in his mid-thirties. Encounters with the paintings of Picasso, Gris, and other Modernists confirmed his conviction that a kindred audacity was called for in poetry. It is easy to see how visits to Alfred Stieglitz’s gallery, where paintings and sculptures of simple objects could be made to yield a world—“No ideas but in things,” as Williams famously put it—might encourage an experiment like the red wheelbarrow, a “readymade” reminiscent of Duchamp’s urinal.

Many of Williams’s best poems of the early 1920s, including “To Elsie” (“The pure products of America/go crazy”), “At the Ball Game,” and “The Red Wheelbarrow,” are often reprinted in isolation. In their original setting, they formed part of Williams’s remarkable book Spring and All, a hybrid of prose and verse first published in 1923 and recently re-released by New Directions. It is exhilarating to read the little book straight through today. What Williams set out to do in Spring and All was to make a clean break with all that had gone before in poetry in English. In this regard he wanted to emulate his hero, Poe, who had managed to “sweep all worthless chaff aside ... to clear the GROUND.” Clearing the ground meant getting rid of traditional “handcuffs of ‘art’” such as rhyme and meter and capital letters at the beginning of verses. But it also meant discarding the exhausted subjects long accepted as “poetic”: beauty, humanity, romantic love, and all the other emotions recollected in tranquility.

On the first page of Spring and All, Williams anticipated resistance:

What do they mean when they say: “I do not like your poems; you have no faith whatever. You seem neither to have suffered nor, in fact, to have felt anything very deeply. There is nothing appealing in what you say but on the contrary the poems are positively repellent. They are heartless, cruel, they make fun of humanity.... Rhyme you may perhaps take away but rhythm! why there is none in your work whatever. Is this what you call poetry?.... Poetry that used to go hand in hand with life, poetry that interpreted our deepest promptings, poetry that inspired, that led us forward to new discoveries, new depths of tolerance, new heights of exaltation. You moderns! it is the death of poetry that you are accomplishing.” 

The passage resembles a moment early in Philosophical Investigations, when Wittgenstein anticipates objections to his own work in “clearing the ground” of a moribund philosophical language:

Where does our investigation get its importance from, since it seems only to destroy everything interesting, that is, all that is great and important? (As it were all the buildings, leaving behind only bits of stone and rubble.) What we are destroying is nothing but houses of cards, and we are clearing up the ground of language on which they stand.

The poet and the philosopher acknowledge the destructive energy of their revolutionary books, both of which are assembled of fragments, aphorisms, and jarring juxtapositions. The positive work is to gain access to a realm that Williams calls the “Imagination” and Wittgenstein the “language of everyday.” Philosophy, says Wittgenstein, “leaves everything as it is.” And Williams, in commenting on his red wheelbarrow, also leaves things as they are: “The same things exist, but in a different condition when energized by the imagination.”

Precisely how the imagination could energize things not ordinarily considered poetic is the subject of the wonderful poem from Spring and All that begins “By the road to the contagious hospital.” Here are three key stanzas:

All along the road the reddish
purplish, forked, upstanding, twiggy
stuff of bushes and small trees
with dead, brown leaves under them
leafless vines— 

Lifeless in appearance, sluggish
dazed spring approaches— 

They enter the new world naked,
cold, uncertain of all
save that they enter. 

One can see what Robert Lowell meant in praising Williams’s “dashing rightness with words.” Only Whitman could rival that arresting sequence of adjectives beginning with “reddish.” The spatial and auditory leap from “leafless” to “lifeless” is particularly deft. Paul Mariani used the phrase “new world naked” for the subtitle of his own biography of Williams.

THE APPROACH OF spring and the drama of entering the New World naked are given a historical setting in In the American Grain, Williams’s pendant work in prose of the 1920s, which Leibowitz considers Williams’s masterpiece. The argument of this luminous book, strung across idiosyncratic essays on historical figures from Red Eric and Columbus to Poe and Lincoln, is that America offered imaginative possibilities to the Old World visitors that they mainly muffed. “For the problem of the New World was, as every new comer soon found out, an awkward one, on all sides the same: how to replace from the wild land that which, at home, they had scarcely known the Old World meant to them.” American history, in Williams’s view, had been written by the small-minded victors, oblivious to the visionary challenges of the wilderness. “We are deceived by history,” he wrote in his revisionist tribute to Aaron Burr. “America had a great spirit given to freedom but it was a mean, narrow, provincial place; it was NOT the great liberty-loving country, not at all.” Williams sets himself the task of rescuing from oblivion the big-hearted explorers and writers who met the challenge of America through spiritual expansion rather than diminution.

The remarkable chapter on “The Destruction of Tenochtitlan,” with its surprisingly sympathetic treatment of Cortés, gave Williams an opportunity to indulge his Hispanic roots. His evocation of the ancient city of the Aztecs, in its celebration of violence and beauty, rivals D.H. Lawrence, who greatly admired the whole book. “Here it was that the tribe’s deep feeling for a reality that stems back into the permanence of remote origins had its firm hold. It was the earthward thrust of their logic; blood and earth; the realization of their primal and continuous identity with the ground itself, where everything is fixed in darkness.” In counterbalance to this Blut und Boden ponderousness, Williams imagines a city built with a spirit “light, it may be, as feathers,” in which “Half land and half water the streets were navigated by canoes and bridged at the intersections by structures of great timbers over which ten horses could go abreast.” It is as though Calvino were inventing yet another invisible city, of feathers and water, for the fatal encounter of Cortés and the brilliant Montezuma.

It is the great theme of assimilation that Williams sounds in the later chapters of In the American Grain. The Puritans assimilated themselves to the conditions of the New World like a parasite rather than a lover. “One had not expected that this seed of England would come to impersonate, and to marry, the very primitive itself; to creep into the very intestines of the settlers and turn them against themselves, to befoul the New World.” The Puritans are the copyists, the replicants, like the imitative poets Williams excoriated in Spring and All.

Against the “diminutive desires” of the Puritans, Williams juxtaposed big-hearted dreamers such as Cortés and Columbus, Burr and Daniel Boone, who were, he believed, transformed and enlarged in their encounter with wildness. If there was assimilation to be done, it was to become “like an Indian”: 

Boone’s genius was to recognize the difficulty as neither material nor political but one purely moral and aesthetic. Filled with the wild beauty of the New World to overbrimming so long as he had what he desired, to bathe in, to explore always more deeply, to see, to feel, to touch—his instincts were contented. Sensing a limitless fortune which daring could make his own, he sought only with primal lust to grow close to it, to understand it and to be part of its mysterious movements—like an Indian. And among all the colonists, like an Indian, the ecstasy of complete possession of the new country was his alone. In Kentucky he would stand, a lineal descendant of Columbus on the beach at Santo Domingo, walking up and down with eager eyes.

The language here, in its uninhibited expansion, is remarkably close to the concluding passage of The Great Gatsby, another masterpiece published in 1925, in which Fitzgerald evokes that first encounter with the New World: “for a transitory enchanted moment man must have held his breath in the presence of this continent, compelled into an aesthetic contemplation he neither understood nor desired, face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder.”

FOR SOME READERS, the culmination of Williams’s experiments with mixed forms and American themes came in the multi-part long poem Paterson, which he struggled with throughout the 1940s. Paterson is both the industrial city on the Passaic Falls, where Williams often worked in the hospital, and a vaguely autobiographical character called Mr. Paterson (“a man is a city”). Leibowitz decries the “sprawl and prolixity” of the poem while singling out for praise Williams’s close attention to the hopeful origins of the city and the conditions of the urban poor, who

fall back among cheap pictures,
     furniture
filled silk, cardboard shoes, bad
     dentistry
windows that will not open,
     poisonous gin
scurvy, toothache—

Lowell wrote that Paterson was “Whitman’s America, grown pathetic and tragic, brutalized by inequality, disorganized by industrial chaos, and faced with annihilation.” Today the craggy epics of Modernism—Crane’s The Bridge, Pound’s Cantos, Williams’s Paterson—have some of the strange charm and dated ambition of the great New York skyscrapers. One marvels at them without quite being able to live comfortably in them.

Only during the 1950s did Williams begin, partly through the admiration of younger poets such as Lowell and Jarrell, to acquire the prizes and other kinds of public notice that had eluded him. By then, it was almost too late for him to enjoy them. Incapacitated by strokes in 1951 and 1952, he typed his poems with a single finger. The poetry that resulted was some of his very best, the three remarkable books of his late period: Pictures from Brueghel, Desert Music, and Journey to Love. It was during this period that Williams, after confessing to various infidelities, wrote some of his most moving love poems, including “The Ivy Crown,” another attempt to get at what mature and enduring love might consist of. “Romance,” he wrote, “has no part of it.”

At our age the imagination
       across the sorry facts
            lifts us
to make roses
       stand before thorns.
            Sure
love is cruel
       and selfish
             and totally obtuse—
at least, blinded by the light,
       young love is.
             But we are older ... 

In these poems, he perfected his segmented three-part line. As Leibowitz puts it, “tercets, a kind of speech therapy, allowed him to move slowly and tentatively, and to catch his breath before leading the train of thought down another flight of stairs.”

“Something Urgent I Have to Say to You,” many years in the making, is a more bellicose book than it needs to be, with many polemical pages on biography directed at various straw men. “Strong hostility was generated in many quarters to biographers.” It seems late in the day to have to justify biography. One wishes that the book were more tautly written. Williams, Leibowitz notes, “labored many years to weed out the poeticisms that overran his own early work.” Leibowitz might have done some weeding of his own. Customers at a speakeasy are referred to as “lovers of Bacchus.” Williams behaves “like a gallant beau writing billets doux to his inamorata.” Gossip “seemed to have just come out of the oven, so hot and aromatic was it.” When Pound annoyed him, Williams “would erupt like Vesuvius and scorch his friend with invective or joke teasingly.”

Leibowitz’s book does help to frame the question of where Williams stands now. The development of American poetry in the twentieth century is inconceivable without him. He is the inventor of much of the poetry one sees in print: free verse in which the line breaks are given special emotive and visual attention, and emotion is carried by the observation of carefully selected concrete things, with minimal commentary. He is often invoked with affection, as Whitman is, but more remembered for his kindly and self-effacing poems than for his fiercer and more experimental work. Leibowitz’s wide-ranging, opinionated, and sometimes scattershot book will help remind readers what an immensely complicated writer Williams was.

Early and late, Williams held the conviction that poetry was, in his friend Kenneth Burke’s phrase, “equipment for living,” a necessary guide amid the bewilderments of life. The American ground was wild and new, a place where a blooming foreigner needed all the help he could get. Poems were as essential to a full life as physical health or the love of men and women. “Look at/what passes for the new,” Williams wrote in “Asphodel”:

You will not find it there but in
     despised poems.
         It is difficult
To get the news from poems
     yet men die miserably every day
         for lack
of what is found there. 

Christopher Benfey is a contributing editor for The New Republic. This article appeared in the December 15, 2011, issue of the magazine.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 77 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

77 comments

Been there done that. WCW is not under-appreciated the article "over appreciates" him.

- arnon

December 10, 2011 at 12:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...Been there done that... I don't think so: The half-stripped trees struck by a wind together, bending all, the leaves flutter drily and refuse to let go or driven like hail stream bitterly out to one side and fall where the salvias, hard carmine-- like no leaf that ever was-- edge the bare garden. .... The development of American poetry in the twentieth century is inconceivable without him. He is the inventor of much of the poetry one sees in print: free verse in which the line breaks are given special emotive and visual attention, and emotion is carried by the observation of carefully selected concrete things, with minimal commentary...

- basman

December 10, 2011 at 2:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nothing depends on that wheelbarrow; nothing at all and that's all right.

- paskunac

December 10, 2011 at 6:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You got it, paskunac.

- arnon

December 10, 2011 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Leibowitz is convinced, like many commentators before him, that the practice of medicine made Williams a more sympathetic interpreter of humanity." The review whitewashes WC Williams' anti-Jewish bias which is all over the letters he wrote before WW2. He like Eliot, Pound and Fitzgerald among other writers and poets of the period indulged himself in this common hatred of that time.

- arnon

December 10, 2011 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

.....The review whitewashes WC Williams' anti-Jewish bias which is all over the letters he wrote before WW2. He like Eliot, Pound and Fitzgerald among other writers and poets of the period indulged himself in this common hatred of that time.... And this affects the quality of his poetry how? And in my view you misconceive Paskunac's philistinism in his "comment."

- basman

December 10, 2011 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry paskunac is right. It's Williams' wheel barrow that depends on extraneous forces and not those forces on the wheelbarrow.

- arnon

December 10, 2011 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Williams' poetry begins and ends in apercus. It does not have the richness of connotations that Wallace Stevens poetry has.

- arnon

December 10, 2011 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's start with this: the poem depends on the red wheel barrow.So the imagination depends on it as it transforms reality, things, that is to say, into art. And the "so much" includes the wheel barrow as functional object, including the operation of the implicitly sketched farm. The positing of its dependence on extraneous forces and nothing depending on the wheel barrow is a false binary in relation to this poem and is a misreading. Paskunac, my mother's typical name for me--not pleasant-in my reading of his comment is saying the poem is a waste of time and it's in that sense that nothing depends on the wheel barrow.

- basman

December 10, 2011 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And note too the purposeful use of the indefinite article "a" with its importing of an object of the imagination that then gets poetically expanded as the images continue through to "the" "white chickens."

- basman

December 10, 2011 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You say "wheelbarrow," I say "willnarrow," let's call the whole thing off. I have read more Williams than I care to re-member. Didn't stick to mind the way whole poems and passages from Frost, Eliot, and Stevens did.

- arnon

December 10, 2011 at 7:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow. Philistines abound; who knew. WCW was a great poet.

- Sophia

December 10, 2011 at 8:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh Muse! relate (for you can tell alone, Wits have short memories, and Dunces none), Relate, who first, who last resign'd to rest; Whose heads she partly, whose completely blest; What charms could faction, what ambition lull, The venal quiet, and entrance the dull; Till drown'd was sense, and shame, and right, and wrong-- sing, and hush the nations with thy song!

- arnon

December 10, 2011 at 9:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In merry (New) Jersey it once was a rule, The critik had his Poet, and also his Fool: But now we're so frugal, I'd have you to know it, That Carlos can serve both for Fool and for Poet.

- arnon

December 10, 2011 at 9:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Variations on a Theme by William Carlos Williams Kenneth Koch 1 I chopped down the house that you had been saving to live in next summer. I am sorry, but it was morning, and I had nothing to do and its wooden beams were so inviting. 2 We laughed at the hollyhocks together and then I sprayed them with lye. Forgive me. I simply do not know what I am doing. 3 I gave away the money that you had been saving to live on for the next ten years. The man who asked for it was shabby and the firm March wind on the porch was so juicy and cold. 4 Last evening we went dancing and I broke your leg. Forgive me. I was clumsy and I wanted you here in the wards, where I am the doctor!

- arnon

December 10, 2011 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophias abound; who knew. WOW was the cry of the few.

- arnon

December 10, 2011 at 9:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Parody of greatness is a cheap shot, easily done and a fool's errand. Chaucer, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth, Dostoyevski, Tolstoy. Flaubert, Proust, Faulkner, Hemingway-- there's no end to the list, anyone can be parodied. Proves nothing and casts no light on what is being parodied. I wouldn't call someone who thinks less of William's's poetry than I do a Philistine. But the proof of the poetice pudding ought to be in the poetic eating, focusing on what the good doctor actually wrote and not that other guff.

- basman

December 11, 2011 at 1:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I found it interesting that WCW's mother was of Sephardic origin. It's funny that the author says "Sephardic" but neglects to explain to the perplexed that what it means is that she was at least partly Jewish. The name "Hobeb" is probably Spanish pronunciation for Hovev, indeed a traditional Sephardic name meaning: affectionate, or a lover (of art or reading, or Zion...). If she carried this name it suggests that she was not of a converso origin as then she would have had a name meant to conceal the Jewish ancestry. I wonder how that fact played in the poet's identity. Sephardic culture linger in memory and sentiment long after all the outside signs of its bearers wear out. All this has nothing to do with quality of WCW's poetry about which I know very little but intend to explore much more deeply in the near future.

- noga1

December 11, 2011 at 8:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kenneth Koch was a genius poet who received the Bollingen Prize.

- arnon

December 11, 2011 at 8:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Parody is a Genre which at its best is used to show the inadequacies of a work. The aim is to transform the pretended sublime into the outright ridiculous. Some parodies like Don Quijote have outlasted the works they parodies. Most of the poems in Alice in Wonderland are parodies of poems once considered serious. Those interested in serious parodies should read: “The Oxford Book of Parodies” John Gross (editor)

- arnon

December 11, 2011 at 10:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The view that "Parody of greatness is a cheap shot..." begs the question of what is greatness.

- arnon

December 11, 2011 at 10:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"what is greatness." I don't know what greatness is but I do have an inkling what a parody of greatness is. In Hebrew we call it: "Ani ve-afsi od", meaning, "myself and nothing else". That is, a smug feeling that someone always knows better than all others put together.

- noga1

December 11, 2011 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

12/11/2011 - 10:10am EDT | arnon The view that "Parody of greatness is a cheap shot..." begs the question of what is greatness. It begs that question only if someone was asserting greatness, whatever that is, instead of arguing for it. My point went to parody being irrelevant to the question of the literary quality of what was being parodied. That's why, in my little comment, I actually listed some of the heaviest of literary hitters before going on to say that for Williams the measure of his literary worth ought to consist of engagement with his actual work and not recourse to his anti Semitism, such as it was, which while interesting is beside that point, or to parody, which, while fun of a certain sort, quickly getting tiresome, finally measures nothing so much as, as is noted above, the cleverness of the parodist.

- basman

December 11, 2011 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...for Williams the measure of his literary worth ought to consist of engagement with his actual work and not recourse to his anti Semitism, such as it was, which while interesting is beside that point,..." I mentioned that WCW before WW2 was antisemitic. I didn't say that one ought to judge his poetry on that basis. That his poetry is not great, not on the same level as that of Wallace Stevens or Robert Frost, is a different issue.

- arnon

December 11, 2011 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I read lots of WCW including his long poem "Paterson" which has some admirers but which I found tedious. Ezra Pound whose antisemitism is beyond dispute wrote some great poems and translations of poems, there is nothing approaching the caliber of such writing in WCW.

- arnon

December 11, 2011 at 12:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way as to Williams's anti Semitism derived from his association with Pound: ....While at Penn, he met a fellow student two years his senior who, despite his pursuit of a degree in medicine, was also writing poetry. William Carlos Williams and Pound became friends, united by their poetic ambitions. Later, in London, Pound persuaded Elkin Mathews to publish an early collection of Williams’s, The Tempers, and he reviewed it himself in The New Freewoman (“He makes a bold attempt to express himself directly and convinces one that the emotions expressed are veritably his own…”). They did not always see eye to eye regarding one another’s work and lives—Pound sometimes found Williams’ work parochial, and Williams wrote with sadness and anger in 1945 about Pound’s cruel letters and anti-Semitism (although he defended Pound as a poet)—still, their friendship, with its ups and downs, lasted for decades. Williams’s Paterson is often regarded, along with the Cantos, as one of the greatest long poems of the century.....

- basman

December 11, 2011 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How do you know that his bigotry derived from his association with Pound? In the 20's and 30's many intellectuals and writers took antisemitism for granted and made casual distasteful remarks about Jews. In the late 30's that started to change. Williams views parallels this cultural phenomenon. btw: what have you read by Williams? Have you read Paterson? Did you read his letters? It seems to me that you are arguing on the basis of one article and some hasty online research, basman.

- arnon

December 11, 2011 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I did a portion of an American poetry course under the great Warren Tallman, who I loved as a professor, on Williams and read and studed all of Paterson closely over the course a semester including reading parts of some its books more than once--that was a long time ago mind you, when I was an undergraduate, though the course was a senior level one. I haven't read too much of Williams's letters. But as a matter of general knowledge I never understood Williams to be an anti Semite, and was surprised by your assertion of it. I haven't researched the issue but was curious to go o line quickly on the point. I wasn't asserting the bit I cited as dispositive but only as to raising a question. It's your proposition. Make your case. Your last post is an argument of guilt by association. As I say: it's your indictment. prove it by specific evidence and not by vague, unhelpful references to "parallels to cultural phenomen."

- basman

December 11, 2011 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

P.s. Which of Williams'poems or which paer of Patterson would you care to discuss in depth ans with specificity?

- basman

December 11, 2011 at 2:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman, I made myself clear above on numerous occasions. I am not a fan of Williams' poetry, and just as I wouldn't spend time discussing the poetry of say Karl Shapiro whose poetry also doesn't thrill me I am not going to waste time on Williams. If you love his poetry so much then you don't need me to make your case. Just post your appreciation of Paterson here and let readers know why you love his poem. His antisemitism is not relevant to my view of him as a poet. I mentioned it above because the reviewer while mentioning his mother's Sephardic origin and left out his own attitudes towards Jews. My view that his attitude wasn't uncommon isn't guilt by association unless you think that a reference to someone's bigoted attitude towards Black people in say the 1920's is guilt by association. These were cultural attitudes and few people who held them considered themselves guilty of anything. (In any case, I was reacting to your view that Williams got his view of Jews from Ezra Pound which wasn't the case, and if it were the case what kind of person gets his attitudes towards whole people's from "friends?") But, I have said enough about Williams.

- arnon

December 11, 2011 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

btw: why are you so threatened by someone disliking writers or books that you like?

- arnon

December 11, 2011 at 3:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You can say as much or as little about Williams as you like. But you did say above: "The review whitewashes WC Williams' anti-Jewish bias which is all over the letters he wrote before WW2" Which letters specfically? I ask out interest and not defiance. I'm aways happy to learn more. As to the quality of his poetry: I was interested to discuss that not out of feeling threatened but out of frustration--not with you as such--with the trading of generalities that passes as much of the commentary here, mine certainly included. I thought it would be interesting to get down to an actual case or two, and that this was a good occasion to do it. I could do worse things with my time than reconsider a few of his poems in depth with a view to (re)assessing their quality. But I guess that won't happen.

- basman

December 11, 2011 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

p.s. What I know generally abut Williams's correspondence is that he was on the receiving end of anti-Semitic letters from Pound, and maybe others, but I'm not aware he himself authored any. So which are the one you have in mind and where do I find them?

- basman

December 11, 2011 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Which letters specfically?" I read them years ago and I am not going to look at them again. If you are interested read them yourself.

- arnon

December 11, 2011 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But what would I read? I can't find any online reference to Williams's anti Semitism in his letters, only references to that of others. That's the reason for my wonder. Surely, if that's a feature of his letters, that'd be so notorious, with The Red Wheel Barrower being such an iconic figure in American poetry, that I'm inclined to infer from this absence of commentary, that there's no anti Semitic there there. If you can't point me to specific letters--you're very well read--at least point me to someone who has argued this out.

- basman

December 11, 2011 at 9:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, Basman, I am not going to do your work for you. Go to the library and do some research. The net is still not the ultimate place for such research. However, a little digging yielded one minor reference. Here it is. It's in a review of the poetry of George Oppen. I should warn you that Logan is not the final word on these issues, though I agree with his assessment of Oppen's poetry. "In a tell-all age all must be told, but it’s crucial to remember how recently such language was common. If we’re going to call Eliot an anti-Semite and Larkin a racist, we ought to start drawing up an indictment of Sylvia Plath, who noted in her journals a girl’s “long Jewy nose”; or Marianne Moore, who mentioned in a letter that a “coon took me up in the elevator”; or William Carlos Williams, whose letters are peppered with references to wops, niggers, and Jews. Until very recently such remarks were so prevalent in Britain and America, we do ourselves no credit by turning into scapegoats the writers who merely succumbed to the bigotry of the age." http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Stouthearted-men-1481 You need to follow up on his remark and do further research. Here is another tidbit: An interview with the Williams' in the early 60's it's not about what we are discussing but there is a reference to William Carlos Williams' Jewishness by his wife that you may find interesting. "INTERVIEWER [to WCW looking in] Apparently those letters don't represent your final attitude? WILLIAMS No; the only thing that I remember was the attitude of Flossie's father— MRS. WILLIAMS But that has nothing to do with Ezra's last visit here, dear. WILLIAMS Just a passing comment. [withdraws] MRS. WILLIAMS Bill and Ezra wrote quite a number of letters to each other when the war started; they were on such opposite sides. Ezra was definitely pro-Fascist, much as he may deny it, and Bill was just the opposite. Not pro-Semitic but not anti-Semitic either, by any means." Notice the tone of defensiveness on her part. Anyway I don't won't to discuss this any further!

- arnon

December 11, 2011 at 10:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ok

- basman

December 12, 2011 at 12:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

P.s. btw thanks for your last post. I appreciate the trouble you took. Fwiiw, I just saw a reference to the exchange of correspondence between Williams and Zukovsky where Z notes how they commonly used the word Jew to refer to guess who, Jews. No need to respond but here's Williams's poem The Crowd At The Ball Game, where "the Jew gets it straight..." The crowd at the ball game is moved uniformly by a spirit of uselessness which delights them— all the exciting detail of the chase and the escape, the error the flash of genius— all to no end save beauty the eternal— So in detail they, the crowd, are beautiful for this to be warned against saluted and defied— It is alive, venomous it smiles grimly its words cut— The flashy female with her mother, gets it— The Jew gets it straight— it is deadly, terrifying— It is the Inquisition, the Revolution It is beauty itself that lives day by day in them idly— This is the power of their faces It is summer, it is the solstice the crowd is cheering, the crowd is laughing in detail permanently, seriously without thought

- basman

December 12, 2011 at 1:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The Jew gets it straight— it is deadly, terrifying— It is the Inquisition, the Revolution" Awesome.

- noga1

December 12, 2011 at 6:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The crowd at the ball game" Basman, if you posted the poem as an example of WCW fight against antisemitism, think again. The poem offers an aesthetic view of violence among other things. It was published in the early 1920's at a time when some aesthetic theories valued violence. (Futurism, for example) "So in detail they, the crowd, are beautiful for this to be warned against saluted and defied— It is alive, venomous it smiles grimly its words cut— The flashy female with her mother, gets it— The Jew gets it straight— it is deadly, terrifying— It is the Inquisition, the Revolution It is beauty itself that lives day by day in them idly— This is the power of their faces It is summer, it is the solstice the crowd is cheering, the crowd is laughing in detail permanently, seriously without thought"

- arnon

December 13, 2011 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More likely it is a meditation on the deadly beauty and terror of crowds something that Elias Canetti took an entire book to explain. Anyone who can't comprehend the deep insight into Jewish trauma when it comes to crowds in the lines: "The Jew gets it straight— it is deadly, terrifying— It is the Inquisition, the Revolution" has very little to offer by way of interpretation of poetry or anything else, for that matter. No poet who could write these lines can be deemed antisemitic.

- noga1

December 13, 2011 at 6:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't cite the poem as an example of Williams's "fight against anti Semitism." I'm not aware of him ever fighting against it. I cited it as a poem by Williams with a specific reference to Jew as victim, albeit that reference is a small subset of the poem, which explores the crowd's ranging from its beauty in its unified delight at the innocuous mindlessness of a baseball game to its potential as a murderous, venomous mob. The reference to the Jew as past and potential victim seems to the point given what we were talking about, is consistent with Williams's angry reaction, later, to Pound's anti Semitism, which reaction lines up with what I have been suggesting to you against your suggestion of Williams's anti Semitism and is pointedly poignant, written in 1923, given what the next 20 years were to bring as another installment of the Jew hatred underlying the Inquisition. Finally, it to my mind misreads this poem to see it as an example of the aestheticization of violence. Re-extending my invitation, The Crowd would be an entirely manageable poem to consider in depth.

- basman

December 13, 2011 at 6:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't see The 6:16 post when I posted mine right after it.

- basman

December 13, 2011 at 6:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wrote an earlier version of this but it got lost, so I had to rewrite it: “The reference to the Jew as past and potential victim seems to the point given what we were talking about, is consistent with Williams's angry reaction, later, to Pound's anti Semitism,…” I don’t see it that way, Basman. (I’ll ignore Noga’s ignorant comment.) First, it’s difficult to parse the lines in such a way that it would offer only one meaning: "So in detail they, the crowd, are beautiful for this to be warned against saluted and defied— It is alive, venomous it smiles grimly its words cut— The flashy female with her mother, gets it— The Jew gets it straight— it is deadly, terrifying— It is the Inquisition, the Revolution It is beauty itself that lives day by day in them idly— This is the power of their faces It is summer, it is the solstice the crowd is cheering, the crowd is laughing in detail permanently, seriously without thought" You need to read the whole stanza: “The flashy female with her mother, gets it— The Jew gets it straight— it is deadly, terrifying— It is the Inquisition, the Revolution It is beauty itself that lives day by day in them idly—“ The crowd is “deadly, terrifying—“ It is beauty itself….” Then he goes on: It is summer, it is the solstice the crowd is cheering, the crowd is laughing in detail permanently, seriously without thought" The crowd is seen as a force of nature, yet it is also Kant’s definition of the aesthetic “purposefulness without purpose.” I don’t think that Williams is a great poet, but the way you read the poem makes him out to be a mediocre poet at best: “The Jew gets it straight— it is deadly, terrifying—“ Had Williams written a poem about Jews being terrified by crowds this would have been a pretty dull poem indeed. He was after something else, entirely. The “it” above refers to “the crowd” and not “the Jew.” “The Jew” and “the flashy female with her mother, gets it—“ are mere spectators who get the meaning of the crowd’s terrifying sublime power. What gives the sublime its power is its capacity to crush, to crush “mere” humanity: the human all too human of Nietzsche. What makes the poet (artist) superior is his appreciation of that terrifying power. It’s hard to say from this one poem what Williams had in mind in the early 20’s but the aesthetics here is consistent with the aesthetics of the Italian futurists. I doubt that by the late 30’s Williams would have wished to own up to what the poem’s real meaning was and most people would not have wanted to delve deeply into the subject. It was indeed a terrifying time especially for Jews. The poem then is not inconsistent with an attitude towards Jews that may not be antisemitic but doesn’t see them (“The flashy female, the “Jew”) as beings capable of appreciating the beauty in this force of nature, this “solstice” which is “seriously without thought.” Why “solstice,” why “summer?”

- arnon

December 13, 2011 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now compare this poem to one by Wallace Stevens (a far superior poet): “The Idea of order in Key West” (Written I think in 1934.) Stevens mentions someone named Ramon Fernandez there. He insisted that it was just a name and didn’t refer to anyone specific. Still readers have argued that it refers to Ramon Fernandez a French critic whom Stevens knew about. RF had been written on Proust considered himself once a proletariat till he embraced the French pro Fascist rightwing. The problem is how to think about its meaning in this complex poem? Here are a couple of possibilities: http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/s_z/stevens/keywest.htm James Longenbach “Stevens always insisted that "Ramon Fernandez" was "not intended to be anyone at all," and, in a sense, like the "Mr. Burnshaw" of "Mr. Burnshaw and the Statue," he is a caricature [Stanley Burnshaw, as addressed in Stevens’ poem, was active as a Marxist critic in the 1930s]. Yet most of Stevens’s readers will know that Fernandez was a critic familiar to Stevens from the pages of the Nouvelle revue française, the Partisan Review, and the Criterion (where he was translated by T. S. Eliot). Fernandez’s criticism became increasingly politically engaged in the 1930s, especially after the violent riots and the general strike he witnessed in Paris in the wake of the Stavisky Affair. (The mastermind of illicit financial deals in which the French government was implicated, Stavisky was found dead – apparently by his own hand, though his suicide seemed to most French citizens to have been far too convenient.) After the riots, Fernandez published an open letter to Gide in the Nouvelle revue française, asserting that while he had not opposed the fascist cause before the riots, he was now converted to the struggle of the proletariat. The letter provoked a number of letters in response, some of them challenging Fernandez, others simply canceling subscriptions to the Nouvelle revue française.” And this: “Ghostly Demarcations: On Ramon Fernandez” by Alice Kaplan http://www.thenation.com/print/article/ghostly-demarcations-ramon-fernandez “For Stevens, Fernandez was the Frenchman with a Spanish name, but also the critic who wrote about his Marxist sympathies in the Nouvelle Revue Française. His name, with its perfect scansion, was also a marker of politics writ large, and of the battles Stevens was waging around the notion of ambiguity and the relationship of poetry to history and politics. Stevens couldn't have known how prophetic a phrase he had wrought for Fernandez in "the maker's rage to order."” Here is real historical irony. I would suggest that William’s poem too has been overtaken by history and it’s almost impossible to find the real meaning of the poem and certainly not a single meaning.

- arnon

December 13, 2011 at 7:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon thanks for your posts. I took off a few minutes to make mine from preparing for a trial tomorrow. I'd like to engage yours. Give me a day or two and I'll for sure get back to you.

- basman

December 13, 2011 at 8:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"(I’ll ignore Noga’s ignorant comment.) " Let the casual reader of this thread decide who is ignorant and who speaks thoughtfully.

- noga1

December 13, 2011 at 8:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

p.s. What I propose to do is explicate Williams's poem leading to an overall interpretation of it and in doing that answer or put into better critical context the comments and questions in 12/13/2011 - 7:33pm EDT | arnon.

- basman

December 13, 2011 at 8:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

p.s. "What I propose to do is explicate Williams's poem leading to an overall interpretation of it and in doing that answer or put into better critical context the comments and questions in 12/13/2011 - 7:33pm EDT | arnon." That's fine, but I hope it's not just one of your "close readings" meant to justify your views. I hope you do some research on Williams and the aesthetics he was working with.

- arnon

December 13, 2011 at 8:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Let the casual reader...." Noga's blah, blah, blah,....

- arnon

December 13, 2011 at 8:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Poor arnon, reduced to inarticulate blather. The more you speak the more you reveal your coarse mind.

- noga1

December 13, 2011 at 9:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It would've been in all likelihood a close reading justifying my views, unless my analysis would've led me to a different view of the poem--highly unlikely, since your comments and questions didn't at first blush make much sense to me. I don't want to waste anyone's time, mostly my own. Since you don't seem to want an argument justified by my close reading of the poem as I see it, logical and supported by textual evidence, let's, as you said before, call the whole thing off. Life's too short.

- basman

December 13, 2011 at 10:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good, basman.

- arnon

December 13, 2011 at 10:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like I care what a bitch like Noga who had never heard of WC Williams before this review says about him? She has a pathological need to prove how smart she is. Go prove yourself to your Professor, you know the one you couldn't write your dissertation for. You can't make up here, what you didn't achieve in your life, Noga. You are a nut case.

- arnon

December 13, 2011 at 10:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

p.s. What do you know about my "close readings" anyway? I've never had such an exchange with you, unless you're somebody else. Know what I mean jelly bean?

- basman

December 14, 2011 at 12:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When did I ever mention a dissertation here, arnon? Where did you get this information I wonder, schmuck? Does it mean you search for information about me on the Internet? And, are you really under the delusion that anybody at all is interested in proving themselves to you? Some people, and that's a rare phenomenon I believe, are extremely well read but that doesn't seem to have on them any good impact at all. You appear to be one of those. So far you have demonstrated not one bit of joy in the reading of novels or poems that have been discussed. Your only concern seems to be to show that you read one more thing than the other guy, even when that other guy is a bona fide prof of English Lit with a very good reputation for astuteness, eloquence and humour. Discussing literature ought to be utter fun and open mindedness to other readings, not the dogmatic rigid exercise that you appear to want to impose. What a stick in the mud you are. And what a foul mouth. It all hangs together, tout se tient.

- noga1

December 14, 2011 at 7:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know what you are talking about, Basman. Close readings of a poem are fine if done to discover the intrinsic meaning of a poem and not used to push a predetermined thesis.

- arnon

December 14, 2011 at 9:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, you have never read WCW's and everything you say here about the man or his work is irrelevant. As usual you are trying to become the center of attention.

- arnon

December 14, 2011 at 9:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What an idiot.

- noga1

December 14, 2011 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What an idiot" I agree you are an idiot, Noga, and a narcissist who needs to be the center of attention. Stop using these forums to make up for your shortcomings in daily life.

- arnon

December 14, 2011 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're not understanding me. Of course I wasn't proposing a close reading merely to rationalize a predetermined conclusion. Of course I wanted to read the poem closely to try to excavate its "intrinsic" meaning. My point to you was I thought I understood that meaning here and likely my close reading would shore up what I thought. But I did say that I'd change my view if that's where my analysis led me. Why you you think I'd be tendentious is beyond me, as is why you think I'd merely distort my close reading of the poem to fit my initial conclusion. About the last thing I need are truisms about what close reading is supposed to accomplish and the undesirability of tendentious, after the fact rationalizations. You still haven't answered my question about your familiarity with my close readings in the service of justifying preconceptions, a characterization I reject. After all, it was you who said, ..That's fine, but I hope it's not just one of your "close readings" meant to justify your views...

- basman

December 14, 2011 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am not specifically familiar with your close readings, but I do no that close reading as a method of figuring out the meaning of poetry as practiced by its originators the new critics (very old by now) had the objective of finding irony in a given poem. In other words the close reading was used to uncover what they thought was already buried there.

- arnon

December 14, 2011 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The New Critics didn't explore poems to find irony in them. Rather, they noted and analyzed irony where it occurred along with paradox, ambiguity, thematic tension and the other properties they saw as constituting literature. But their prime critical aim, in which I think they were right, was to see the work as an organic, autonomous whole and and to explicate that whole as revelatory of meaning arising from form, however necssarily approximate. You'll recall their phrase, I think it was Cleanth Brooks's, "the heresy of paraphrase." That phrase, as I'm sure you know, expressed their revulsion at stale thematic restatement that didn't deal with how meaning arises from form properly understood.

- basman

December 14, 2011 at 5:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

p.s. Wellek andvWarren spoke in analogous terms when they spoke of the work's ultimate strata of meaning as its metaphysical qualities. So did Dorothy Van Ghent in speaking about the world of the novel as a critical construct. And even Frye, for all his modes and his anatomy, spoke of form as meaning holding the poem together in a simultaneous structure. These references are admittedly hoary, but they were some of the critics I read way back, and the last critics I read who made any sense to me. For post modernism and critical theory followed in their wake and have left me scratching my head ever since.

- basman

December 14, 2011 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and then......?

- arnon

December 14, 2011 at 5:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And then what?

- basman

December 14, 2011 at 10:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where is your reading of the poem?

- arnon

December 14, 2011 at 10:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, I thought you were uninterested to get it.

- basman

December 16, 2011 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The diction in this poem moves from opening line everyday vernacular—“The crowd at the ball game”—immediately to the more learned, abstract and complex—“is moved uniformly.” Thereafter, embedded in the poem’s pervasive use of this more learned diction are glints of vernacular—“the chase,” “The flashy female with her/mother gets it—,” “The Jew gets it straight—.” Every mention of “the crowd” links back to the opening vernacular. These controlled fluctuations in poetic diction contrast the crowd, a mass of people that is to say, as a simple, passive social group, bound mindless, idle and useless delight, with what, acted upon, it can so profoundly and quickly become out of its passivity a living instrument of homicidal venom. So the opening couplet introduces this simple mass of humanity in the most ordinary of American pursuits as unified in its passivity—“is moved uniformly,” the poetic use of the passive grammatically reinforcing the crowds passivity. As well, the contrasting diction illuminates the crowd’s self-unawareness, related to its passivity, particularly in relation to the poetic exploration of the crowd’s nature and terrifying potency as a weapon and instrument. And as the contrasting diction moves from concrete vernacular simplicity to the abstract—“is moved uniformly/by a spirit of uselessness/which delights them—“ the latter enfolds the former thematically and formally, which is to say, semantically and syntactically.

- basman

December 17, 2011 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On a first fast reading, basman, it seems quite good, though I didn't get the last line: "....thematically and formally, which is to say, semantically and syntactically." How is thematic the same as semiosis, or form the same as syntax?

- arnon

December 18, 2011 at 12:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My comments were just the beginning of would be a longer, close reading of the poem. But I find your question surprising. I mean how do you separate a poem's from from its meaning? Of all literary genres, the short poem is the strongest example of the New Critics' argument. If the crowd is passive and acted upon in turning it into a wanton heedless force, then describing it in the passive voice and then its actions in the active voice, as Williams does, are instances of incidents of form becoming meaning. Form and theme are two sides of the same coin, two intirniscally related ways of talking about the same thing as aspects of each other.

- basman

December 18, 2011 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My comments were just the beginning of would be a longer, close reading of the poem. But I find your question surprising. I mean how do you separate a poem's from from its meaning? Of all literary genres, the short poem is the strongest example of the New Critics' argument. If the crowd is passive and acted upon in turning it into a wanton heedless force, then describing it in the passive voice and then its actions in the active voice, as Williams does, are instances of incidents of form becoming meaning. Form and theme are two sides of the same coin, two intirniscally related ways of talking about the same thing as aspects of each other.

- basman

December 18, 2011 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry for the double entry.

- basman

December 18, 2011 at 2:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“My comments were just the beginning of would be a longer, close reading of the poem.” In that case, I’ll wait till you post your complete close reading before I reply.

- arnon

December 18, 2011 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've all day wanted to add, first chance I got, to my note on form and meaning that in relation to the question of how form is the same as syntax, that poetry of its essence is necessarily though not suffciently syntactical, since what is syntax, after all, but the arrangement of words in a coherent unit of language.

- basman

December 18, 2011 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks, basman, I'll just let it rest there.

- arnon

December 18, 2011 at 6:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My pleasure, my good man.

- basman

December 18, 2011 at 11:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close