A very nice
review from David Orr:
More than 50 years ago, Randall Jarrell claimed that as a poet, Wilbur "never goes too far, but he never goes far enough." The observation is invariably quoted whenever Wilbur gets reviewed (far be it from me to break the chain). But to write convincingly about death — and also, as Wilbur has increasingly done, about grief — isn't a matter of "going" anywhere. It's a matter of remaining poised in the face of a vast and freezing indifference. And while the strong, spare poems here are unlikely to strike many readers as the illustrious pronouncements of a Grand Old Man — the kind of figure Jarrell had in mind — they are wholly successful in meeting the darkest of subjects with their own quiet light. Which is, surely, a far grander thing.
I had been afraid that
my reading of "A Measuring Worm" was just the residue of
my inarticulate interpretation of Fish's review of
True Grit and the
incomplete reflection on
The Road. I guess a fear of "a vast and freezing indifference" hangs over all of it anyway. It calls to mind this from Joseph Ratzinger's
Introduction to Christianity:
If he who seeks to preach the faith is sufficiently self-critical, he will soon notice that it is not only a question of form, of the kind of dress in which theology enters upon the scene. In the strangeness of theology's aims to the men of our time, he who takes his calling seriously will clearly recognize not only the difficulty of the task of interpretation but also the insecurity of his own faith, the oppressive power of unbelief in the midst of his own will to believe. (41)
6 comments:
For crying out loud, I didn't even know this thing was out. I'll need to get back to it.
There are not very many poems in the book. I believe most of them are already online at the The New Yorker:
A Prelude; Ecclesiastes 11:1; The House; Galveston, 1961; A Reckoning; Flying; Anterooms; Trismegistus; Terza Rima; Young Orchard
Those aren't in order.
Ah, I have read a few of those! Many thanks for the links. Of course, now I have to admit that I read the The New Yorker. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Cheers,
From The Whitest Blogger You Know.
PS: Are you planning on doing an analysis of all the poems?
It's extremely difficult for me to read The New Yorker. I've read almost no contemporary literature and I don't go to plays or things like that. I like to read James Wood when I come across something of his but I really don't understand much of it. I certainly wouldn't make fun of reading it. I simply have no culture and no taste. It's like drinking wine to me. It is unfortunate because I can't get through a page of Brideshead Revisited, for example, without spending an hour or so wishing I was the sort of person who knew off-hand what distinguishes "Late-Victorian mourning paper" from all other writing paper. I don't think that's trivial knowledge.
"Are you planning on doing an analysis of all the poems?"
I can really only "analyze" a poem when something strikes me. As you can see, it's not very often. I like David Orr's analysis of the book as a whole very much though -- particularly of the Galveston poem (if you can call it analysis rather than putting-the-poem-in-a-good-spot-in-a-review) -- and probably couldn't offer much more than that. The post on "The House" is probably the best I can come up with.
I mostly make fun of myself for reading the paper for the same reason that I do for reading the Economist. However, I would be a fool if I didn't say that I enjoy reading both and wish I could have the knowledge to engage the authors a bit more.
However, I think this little skit shows the humour of the public perception of those who read more cultural papers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7VgNQbZdaw
Thanks again for the links.
Post a Comment