Tuesday, May 28, 2013

The Random House Book of Twentieth-Century French Poetry

I'm not one of these people who can tell you what I'd take if I were to be stranded on a desert island (duh, a basketball named Wilson, maybe?). Nor am I a list-maker in the sense that I have a Top Ten of This or That. It's true that probably "The Haunting" (Robert Wise's version), "L.A. Story" and "Diary of a Country Priest" would rank up there on a favorite films list. And I can't imagine wanting to live in a house that didn't have copies of books by Edith Wharton, Dorothy Sayers and Wallace Stegner--and books by writers who are friends of mine.

But I can probably say with some certainty that, apart from Shakespeare, the best collection of poetry I know is The Random House Book of Twentieth-Century French Poetry, edited with great heart by Paul Auster on a shoestring budget in 1982.

It's just a great collection. It's got French and English on facing pages, so you have the pleasure of reading aloud the original language--and the opportunity to quibble with the translator's take on any given poem, if you're feeling sassy. (I have a little bone to pick with John Ashbery's translation of Pierre Riverdy's "Encore L'Amour.")

Who's here? Oh, everybody is here: The Rumanian, Tristan Tzara, is who fought in the Spanish Civil War and then later, in the Resistance. Another Resistance fighter, Robert Desnos,  is here (and you can visit his grave in the Montparnasse Cemetery if you happen to be in Paris). The big names are here: Louis Aragon, Antonin Artaud, Andre Breton, Guillaume Apollinaire, Jacques Prevert. The lesser-known ones are here, too, and rightly: Raymond Queneau, Jean Follain, Rene Char, Yves Bonnefoy, the marvelous Jean-Paul de Dadelsen. There are a bunch of others, as well.
The whole thing is a treat for the ears and the word-painting is so vivid, it's a treat for the eyes of the imagination, as well.

I'll just leave you with a little sample. Here it is, by Tristian Tzara:

                                                     Way

what is this road that separates us
across which I hold out the hands of my thoughts
a flower is written at the end of each finger
and the end of the road is a flower that walks with you


Saturday, May 25, 2013

"Provide, Provide"

It's one of Frost's best poems, that one about Abishag (in Frost's words, " the picture pride of Hollywood") sent in to seduce King David late in his life when the kingdom needed more sons and his own wives didn't turn him on anymore. Yet even Abishag grows old. You can't always be a winner. And Frost writes about it. He writes about it succinctly.

His poem is slim--seven three-lined rhyming stanzas. It's pithy. It's biblical. And spot-on. I'm sure Frost knew. He wanted Abishag--and all of us who lose our beauty, to know the score:

Better to go down dignified
With boughten friendship at your side
Than none at all. Provide, provide!

Apparently science is once more validating what the heart and the Hebrew scriptures already knew:  "it is not good that the man (by which we can assume "the woman" also) should be alone." In Genesis this leads to the creation of Eve and thence to the fall and all that--let's save that for another bone-cold, rainy May day.

But in the May 13th issue of The Nation, science writer, Judith Shulevitz cites psychologist Frieda Fromm-Reichmann's ground-breaking 1959 essay "On Loneliness" in support of what current medical research has revealed. As she puts it in her article: "Over the past half-century, academic psychologists have largely abandoned psychoanalysis and made themselves over as biologists. And as they delve deeper into the workings of cells and nerves, they are confirming that loneliness is as monstrous as Fromm-Reichmann said it was."

Look, nobody is reading this blog because they want to hear about loneliness. On the other hand, most of us know something--to a greater or lesser degree--about loneliness. After all there are those of us--and I number myself among them--who enjoy being alone. I mean, we're okay with those rare, long stretches where we are, simply, alone. But that kind of alone-ness depends on there being a period at the end of those sentences about how happy we are to be alone. I took a writing sojourn away from my daughters--and my job--ten years ago and spent the first four days in a kind of slap-happy writer's trance. No lunches to make! No laundry to do! (No parishioners to visit! No meetings to attend! No sermon to write!) But by day five I was thrilled when close friends of mine arrived in my hidden little hamlet and took me out to dinner. After that I knew enough to limit the length of my solo vision quests. Because I had gotten--so slightly--truly lonely.

Well, Shulevitz quotes a ton of studies and doctors and reports that give us all reason to feel glum. To keep it from getting too heavy, I'll summarize: lonely people get sicker more often and die younger. Lonely older people die sooner than less lonely ones. Women are lonelier than men (and men happen to be less lonely than married women). Loneliness can be hereditary. Isolated communities, such as gay men at the height of the AIDS epidemic tended to feel more lonely and more isolated than the general population. The less educated are more lonely, as are the poor. And then Shulevitz cites statistics about the vast numbers of Romanian orphans--in a country in which abortion had been outlawed--whose amygdalas and pre-frontal cortexes had simply not developed normally, as a result of--no other way to say it--a complete lack of significant parental nurturing.

She ends her piece with what I hope is some kind of grace note, though I'm not sure I buy it: "At a deeper level," she says, "loneliness research forces us to acknowledge our own extraordinary malleability in the face of social forces.... Put an orphan in foster care, and his brain will repair its missing connections. Teach a lonely person to respond to others without fear and paranoia, and over time, her body will make fewer stress hormones and get less sick from them. Care for a pet or start believing in a supernatural being and your score on the UCLA Loneliness Scale will go down. Even an act as simple as joining an athletic team or a church can lead to what Cole calls “molecular remodeling.”

Or we can take a page from Robert Frost, if we have the means:

Better to go down dignified
With boughten friendship at your side
Than none at all. Provide, provide!

 



Sunday, May 19, 2013

The Wild New England Shore

I had to chuckle. Okay, maybe it was more of a snarl. But it was some form of an amused sound I made when I read The Massachusetts Review's rejection of my submission:

Dear Writer:
Though your work has been declined by our editors, we thank you for allowing us to consider it. 


Sincerely,
The Editors of The Massachusetts Review

I was struck by a couple of things: the anonymity of the rejection, of course. But also by how that anonymity was somehow amplified by the inconsistent logic in the use of the upper and lower case. I mean, I never think of myself as a Writer. But if I did think of myself that way, I'd think that what I wrote was Work. And--no offense, I don't think of the editors of The Massachusetts Review as Editors, either, but as people who have names. Same as I have. A name, not an upper case letter appended to what I or they may or may not be.

Anyway, it's nothing personal about Massachusetts, the state (or should I say The State?) to which I one day hope to emigrate in order to cleave more closely to the shore (and ironically, the story I submitted to them was one set on Massachusetts' brilliant Cape Ann). It's just that the irony of such an impersonal rejection was in stark contrast to the warm acceptance I got for a story which will be forthcoming this fall in the print edition of Prick of the Spindle journal. I had an earlier piece in the September, '09 online edition of that magazine, which you can see at http://www.prickofthespindle.com/pages/vol.3.3/nonfiction_reviews.htm. It's called "Lent."

Okay, no hard feelings, dear Editors of The Massachusetts Review (or maybe a tiny few) and just to prove that I'm going to quote, as a paean to the Bay State, from a Felicia Hemans' poem I used to recite as a child (strange child!) at the drop of a hat for any occasion. My family didn't like it, but I was a Pilgrim to my core:

 The Landing of the Pilgrims

The breaking waves dashed high
Pilgrims mooring their bark
on a stern and rock-bound coast,
And the woods against a stormy sky
their giant branches tossed.

And the heavy night hung dark
the hills and waters o'er,
When a band of exiles moored their bark
on the wild New England shore.

(Just imagine all the nouns and adjectives you could turn into Words of Substance in this little snippet of the poem.)

And don't forget to check out Prick of the Spindle!
http://www.prickofthespindle.com/pages/vol.3.3/nonfiction_reviews.htm.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Little Girl Lost




It’s not news that parents of prodigiously talented children can be ruthlessly ambitious and even abusive to them.

Bobby Fischer’s mother, who wrote newspaper ads to find competent chess partners for him when he was as young as eight years-old-old, abandoned him at age seventeen. Beethoven’s father, in pushing his son to be a Mozart-styled child pianist, abused and neglected both Beethoven and his brothers. (Indeed, by the time Beethoven was nineteen, he filed and won a legal order against his father, making him the de facto head of the household.)

Barbara Follett
The long-forgotten, but once famous math prodigy, Zerah Colburn wowed the American public with his feats. Cashing in on his fame, his father brought him to Europe. But when the father died, penniless Colburn was left to fend for himself, returning twelve years later, at age nineteen, to a mother who did not recognize him.

But surely one of the most heart-rending stories of a child’s prodigious talent and a parent’s narcissistic interest in it is that of Barbara Follett’s.

As early as age eight, Barbara Follett believed in herself as a writer and when her father, the critic and editor, Wilson Follett, bought her a typewriter, she closeted herself in her bedroom and began work on her first novel.

It was to be a tale, written, revised and re-written, of a girl who ventures into the woods and vanishes into nature. Friends, when needed, could always be imagined. “I pretend,” she once explained, “that Beethoven, the two Strausses, Wagner, and the rest of the composers are still living, and they go skating with me.”

Her father, Wilson Follett, having already written about his three-year-old daughter in Harper’s, contacted Knopf.  Barbara’s novel, The House Without Windows, came out to  overwhelming praise in 1927.  Barbara was twelve.

The Voyage of the Norman D followed. The Times Literary Supplement lauded it. The Saturday Review featured it alongside Dorothy Parker. She was no longer just a childish anomaly; she was an author.

But just a week before the book came out, Wilson Follett announced to Barbara and his wife that he, having just turned forty, was leaving them for a younger woman. And he did, leaving them in dire financial straits on the eve of the Depression. At sixteen, Barbara was taking subway into New York to work as a secretary.

Without the support of her father, Barbara, remarkably, continued to write, creating two other manuscripts. But eventually her writing stopped. She married and for a while they were happy, hiking and backpacking between her secretarial jobs. Barbara briefly traveled to Mills College where she studied dance. But on returning to her home in Boston, she discovered that her husband had been seeing someone else. They soldiered on, but within a few months they quarreled, Barbara left. And was never seen again.

For reasons never to be known, her husband waited two weeks to go to the police and four months before requesting a missing persons bulletin.

Betrayed first by her father and then by her husband, Barbara Follett was never found, her prodigious talent unrealized. All that remains of her work today is in six archival boxes in the Columbia University library.

And both the irony and tragedy of the loss of Barbara Follett is encaptured in an anonymous essay Wilson Follett wrote for The Atlantic. With muted guilt Wilson Follett asks: “Could Helen Hayes be lost for ten days without a trace? Could Thomas Mann? Could Churchill? And now it is getting on toward forty times ten days…” The father, having left the daughter, never found her.

And I would one day love to write the biography of a child writer about whose life we know next to nothing. But that wouldn’t be a biography, really. It  would be fiction

Monday, May 6, 2013

Swaying the Fearful Chandelier

Over a dozen  years ago I had a colleague who said he didn't believe there was a husband in the world who wasn't made happy by coming into his house and hearing his wife singing.

I told myself he thought that way because he was from Montana where, I surmised for some reason, men have kinder hearts. Because at that time I was living in New York and married to a professional musician. A real jazz genius. A guitar wizard. (And please understand, I'm quoting reviews, just not using the quotation marks they came with.)

My husband had assured me that I couldn't sing. That I couldn't sing for shit.

And so I didn't. Except in church. And that's still the only place I do it. (Though in the last few years I've come to sing with a huge community chorus where nobody can hear me, but I can still raise my voice.)

Now this isn't a posting about how aesthetics have no place in church (because they do) so that anybody with any kind of voice at all ought to be bellowing out from the choir stalls (because they shouldn't be). Nor is it a pity-me piece. Professionally speaking, my ex-husband was right: I couldn't then nor now channel the early Rickie Lee, the later Bonnie Raitt, Fiona Apple, Shawn Colvin, Norah Jones or any of the one-named wonders--Madonna, Rihanna, Sade, Beyonce, Pink, Jewel or Adele (there are more, of course)  in any way, shape or form. I can, however, warble quietly through the soprano part in the Faure Requiem (probably because I'm a Francophile) or Bach's "Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott" (probably because I'm Lutheran and it was in the water I grew up drinking).

Having said that, I do take issue with my ex-husband's claim that I couldn't "sing for shit." Singing, like dancing or breathing or eating or making love is something that somehow our bodies want to do. Not always from a choir stall. Not always on a dance floor. But we are the creatures who make things with our bodies, in all ways. The brain does not have the lock on creation. The body is at least as much a poet. (And being a poet, from the Greek, just means "to make.")

So to say that someone "can't sing for shit" isn't much different than saying that they can't make love for shit, or eat for shit or breathe for shit. Our bodies make the world we live in. Talk about original blessing!

I keep singing. I sing softly so no one hears, just in case I do sing for shit. And I sway when it's not the time to dance. And hunger when it's not yet time for the body's other hungers. But I know better than to distrust or dismiss these impulses. These are our holy markings--markings that make us both to want to live within our skin and beyond it as well.

See how the fearful chandelier
trembles above you
each time you open your mouth
to sing. Sing.

--Donald Justice