This very long series of over 700 volumes may not always be introductory. Such is the case with this fine book by Jonathan F. S. Post, Distinguished Research Professor of English at UCLA. The writing is clear enough for an introductory reader and compounded by expertise that displays knowledge of English poetic history as well as Bishop’s oeuvre. I was happy to bounce around from poem to poem to consider similarities and developments. A first-year college reader might drop a few balls with the mental pinball machine. Still, I would recommend this book to any reader of Bishop because Professor Post’s insights are fine-tuned with a good ear and extensive poetic foundation. The author cites Eleanor Cook; this book has a similar down-to-earth perceptive mastery that one finds in Cook’s books, such as Elizabeth Bishop at Work.
In
order to find references to scholars the reader has to turn to References at
the back of the book as there are no in-text citations or footnotes. I found
this annoying because I had the sense that some of Post’s information was
coming from sources but I could not see any. It makes the pages appear to lack
academic integrity. I suppose the Oxford series is aimed at a general reader
who prefers not to be weighed down by academic references, but Dr. Post’s
academic skills and experience are such that I’d prefer to see where some ideas
come from. I’ve always found footnotes cumbersome, but basic in-text citations
would help. It wasn’t until I was a few chapters in that I finally turned to
page 127 to find References. Nothing in-text leads the reader there.
Upon
first reading page 1 from this Very Short Introduction, I was concerned because the first heading is “The Bishop
phenomenon,” which is a recognizable title of a well-known essay by Thomas
Travisano, and yet there is no citation for it: is this mere coincidence or a
gaffe? It is troubling in a book that’s supposed to have authority. Two pages
later a poem title was incorrectly printed as “Sub-Tropics” when Bishop’s prose
poem series is actually called “Rainy Season; Sub-Tropics.” The first part of
the title is crucial in this “vignette,” as Post describes the three
substantial prose poems on sub-tropical critters. My growing sense of dread was
compounded by repetitious mis-appellations of “Machedo” Soares. Bishop’s
lover’s name was elsewhere spelled correctly as Lota de Macedo Soares. Sloppy
editing in the Oxford University Press machine. Several pages later Dr. Anny
Baumann was described as a “lifelong friend,” however, Bishop only began seeing
her in 1947 at age 36 as the “Timeline” at the back notes.
Post
began to win me over as he described the “perfect pitch” of speech in “The
Moose.” Also, since I had been wondering about the approach taken in this book
series, I was relieved to find this in chapter one’s “Biographical beginnings”:
the focus of this Very Short Introduction is to introduce
new
readers to her verse,
the one truly inexhaustible ‘story’ of
Bishop’s life. From this
perspective, biography is an
important first step
because places and people, heightened by
memory and travel—those
features of inner and outer geography
so crucial to Bishop—are
part of the fabric of her verse. (10)
Nice balance there.
It’s the readings of the poems where Post excels. With Bishop’s late autobiographical poem “In the Waiting Room,” Post describes the retrospective narrator’s experience as a “child’s frightening identification of herself as female” while listening to her aunt cry out in pain in the dentist’s office, leading to Bishop’s self-consciousness amidst humanity: “But I felt: you are an I / you are an Elizabeth, / you are one of them. / Why should you be one, too?” Post plays with numbers adeptly:
Yes, ‘one, too’, a
female, that is, but as ‘one’ becomes ‘two’, the young
girl, having been made
uneasily aware of her body, her gender, and
her connection to
others, separates from the child and, assuming
the adult poet’s
consciousness, comes into the ‘night and slush and
cold’ of Worcester on
the ‘fifth | of February, 1918’. The date
reminds us that ‘The War
was on’, outside as well as inside. (13-14)
Complex and accurate. We
next read about “Sestina,” also from 1976’s Geography
III. I especially like how Post does not try and fill in biographical
particulars beyond what the poem offers. There is a tendency in Bishop
criticism to inject copious details from the life into the art, which Post does
not do, and which is a measure of respect:
We don’t know why the
grandmother is crying, although she hints that her
tears are environmental
and seasonal, and are possibly connected,
moreover, to a larger
world of fate as foretold by the almanac.
Since only the
grandmother talks, we’re also not sure of the exact
bond between adult and
child, the family ties behind an afternoon
teatime ritual, although
the child certainly wishes to please the
grandmother by proudly
showing her a drawing of a house. (16)
It’s important for readers to not say too much and make assumptions about the object of the poem’s grief. Is the man with tear-like buttons Bishop’s father or grandfather? It is a child’s drawing so we can’t pinpoint identity beyond the poetic representation.
Next are “Filling
Station” and “First Death in Nova Scotia.” By the end of this very substantial
chapter 1 it’s evident that this is no breezy Introduction. “Filling Station” is potentially linked, rightly so, to
the gas station across from the Bishop-Bulmer house in Great Village (now
Wilson’s). “Somebody loves us all” finishes the poem with potentially divine
and parental overtones. “To the psychoanalytic critic, she is a compensatory
sign for the mother Bishop lost …” (20). Here we see theoretical framework and,
beyond that, interpretation extends to Bishop’s greatest prose story, “In the
Village,” which begins with “mother’s wrenching scream” (20). Not many
introductory readers will have read “In the Village” but this interpretive
reach is necessary to read Bishop’s poetry in connection with the life in her
One Art. Post returns to the end of “Filling Station” and its “loves”:
Not all of these
contexts are equally persuasive, but one more
suggestion is needed. I
think it is possible to read this gesture
rhetorically, that is,
on its own terms, as an evocation of hope by
someone momentarily
‘filled’ by what she has seen. Bishop’s poems
often end in an open
space, leaving us not so much reaching
irritably after facts as
simply recognizing, as in ‘The Moose’, that
‘Life’s like that’. A
person, the speaker, moved to questioning the
place of things,
including her place in an initially foreign setting
like a messy filling
station, can sometimes arrive at a better, more
generous understanding
and say just this sort of thing.
Casual expressions of
life experience are intrinsic to reading Bishop. Much of the pleasure comes
from being an accidental tourist accompanying her travels. This chapter ends by
touching on “Questions of Travel”:
But surely it would have
been a pity
not to have seen the
trees along this road,
really exaggerated in
their beauty,
not to have seen them
gesturing
like noble pantomimists,
robed in pink.
“Yes, surely. Who wouldn’t want to be part of this fantastic venture?” (24) To many readers the appeal of reading Bishop is adventure – geographic and verbal.
Chapter 2 is on “Formal matters” and here Post really excels. Contemporary readers will appreciate his vast knowledge of the poetic tradition through centuries. “Bishop’s supreme valuation of formal variety as a means to singularity was certainly one of the reasons she was drawn to George Herbert, and perhaps a reason why, rather surprisingly, she never quite embraced Emily Dickinson” (29). It’s important and enjoyable to trace Herbert’s formal inventions as they affect Bishop’s poetic workings. Other influences near and far such as Robert Frost and the Brazilian cordel make their way into Bishop’s variety. Bishop’s collaboration with Marianne Moore is discussed in an excellent reading of “Roosters.” Here again, though, the lack of clear reference is frustrating when Post mentions the poem’s ‘“violence” of tone’ in quotation marks just like that. Not many introductory readers would figure out that this “violence” harkens back to a letter that Bishop wrote about “Roosters” to Moore, or that Thomas Travisano wrote an essay on Bishop’s ‘“violence” of tone’ in Elizabeth Bishop and the Music of Literature (Palgrave 2019). There is no reference at the back of the book for Travisano’s essay, Bishop’s letter, or anything to explain the odd punctuation here. Sloppy editing.
This
is not Post’s fault. He excels as formal reader of all kinds of Bishop poems,
such as “Questions of Travel,” in which he brings in the Baroque and Hopkins to
pinpoint prosodic iambs, dactyls, extra syllables, spondees, and Anglo-Saxon
beat in this poem that to me sounds like water falling. “Here is not
description per se, but the act of experiencing in the mind what the eye sees.”
This goes back to a reference that is acknowledged in the text to an essay from
1929 by Morris Croll, “The Baroque Style in Prose.” George Lensing has written
beautifully about this in a 1995 special issue of The Wallace Stevens Journal focused on Bishop and Stevens. Croll
and Stevens depict “a mind thinking,” which is part of this section’s heading.
To
some degree Wallace Stevens set the table for his modernist
contemporaries
when he wrote in ‘Of Modern Poetry’, ‘The poem
of
the mind in the act of finding | What will suffice. It has not
always
had | To find: the scene was set; it repeated what | Was in
the
script’ (my italics). There is a great deal of Stevens in Bishop;
Harmonium
was a
book she said she had almost by heart; she
elsewhere
spoke of admiring the ‘display of ideas at work’ in his
poetry.
And there are lines in her poetry that, without the example
of
Stevens, seem unthinkable in their majestic play with
perception:
‘This celestial seascape, with white herons got up as
angels,
| flying as high as they want and as far as they want
sidewise
| in tiers and tiers of immaculate reflections’ (‘Seascape’).
But
‘if accuracy of observation is equivalent to accuracy of
thinking’,
as Stevens himself observed in Adagia, it is Bishop, not
Stevens,
who best fulfilled the modernist ideal of poetry as the act
of
finding on a human scale in a world of familiar and not so
familiar
objects. (42)
Bishop
often found the unfamiliar through animals; this otherness helped her sometimes
criticize human morality, something she found in Marianne Moore’s poetry
…
without condescension, ‘without “pastoralizing” them as [the critic]
William
Empson might say, or drawing false analogies’. And in this
‘unromantic,
life-like, somehow democratic, presentation of animals’
Moore
helped Bishop (who was also aided by her reading of Darwin) to
write
about animals and, more broadly, nature from a sympathetic but
not
exclusively human-centred perspective …. (51-52)
This enables Bishop’s poetry to be read now as a critique of the Anthropocene age. Sometimes Bishop’s animal poems are more closely linked to humanity, as in “The Armadillo” dedicated to Robert Lowell. Chapter 3 focuses on Lowell and Moore as influential practitioners for Bishop’s animal descriptions.
One
of Bishop’s most critical poetic representations of humanity occurs in “Brazil,
January 1, 1502,” which Post discusses with subtlety: “her delving—to redeploy
an idiom from ‘The Map’—into the shadows that inhabit the shallows” (55). Those
shadows become the forest canopy under which indigenous women retreat while
being attacked by rapacious Portuguese colonizers. Post weaves Ovid’s Philomel
story from Metamorphoses as well as
Shakespeare’s The Rape of Lucrece
into the poem’s tapestry to show that Bishop is
appropriating
one kind of violence (sexual) through another (artistic),
to
reveal a world long familiar to the reader but now seen mysteriously
anew,
as only the closely woven fabric of her marvellous art can do.
For
Bishop the explorer, coming to terms with the cheerful natural landscape
means
coming to understand the sometimes awful footprint of
human
history. (59)
Chapter 4 on poetry and painting includes some of Bishop’s paintings from Exchanging Hats by William Benton and continues fine analysis: “We might regard ‘The Fish’ as a painter’s paradise, and also a reader’s” (67). I feel the same way about “Seascape” and “Pleasure Seas.” Excellent examples from “A Cold Spring,” “Santarem,” and “Over 2,000 Illustrations and a Complete Concordance” are canvased. Post precisely notes that only “Large Bad Picture” and “Poem” are technically ‘ekphrastic,’ meaning “a poem about an artwork, usually a painting. The doors open wider if we use ‘ekphrasis’ in the original classical sense of any verbal description of something seen (think ‘Cape Breton’) …” (75). As with many of Bishop’s readers, Post reads “Poem” with delight, as did Howard Moss when he received it at The New Yorker: “I wish I could read a poem like that every day for the rest of my life” (80).
This
book features six illustrations, two of which are photographs by Rollie McKenna
somewhat similar to the cover of Elizabeth
Bishop in Context, which Post wrote to me that he regretted not having read
by the time his book went to press. Chapter 5 on “Love known” begins by finding
Thomas Travisano’s 2019 biography Love
Unknown an unclear title aside from the allusion to the Herbert poem. For
Bishop knew love, as the posthumous poems “It is marvelous to wake up
together,” “Breakfast Song” and “Vague
Poem (vaguely love poem)” display in different ways. Post does nice work
with more subtle expressions of desire such as “Quai d’Orleans” and “Four
Poems,” the latter of which he reads as an experimental poem. A section
entitled “Still explosions” examines “The Shampoo,” and finds its first stanza
perplexing: “Odd to think of lichens exploding” (93). Really? On daily walks I observe
lichens on rocks and their various amoebic shapes do burst (perhaps my eyes
perceive via Bishop’s painterly descriptions). I can forgive Dr. Post’s
different aperture when I read this rich conclusion about the final stanza:
…
set off with a dash (for spontaneity) and a comma (for a pause),
the
single word ‘Come’, a directive that carries lightly the weight
of
an entire tradition of carpe diem poems in English. (Think
Marlowe’s
‘Come live with me’ or Ben Jonson’s ‘Come my Celia,
let
us prove | The sports of love.’) And in that directive, we might
fancy
Bishop taking control of those loose black hairs in ‘O Breath’
that
were flying around, intolerably blown about, and weaving
them
into a love-knot about something as domestically simple and
sensual
as washing a companion’s hair. (94)
While it may not quite be an entire tradition’s weight, we might also find Emily Dickinson’s dash and comma style here. Earlier in the book Dickinson was understandably downplayed in favour of Herbert, but her signature pauses may figure in “—Come,” and in the delayed foreplay of “Four Poems” and its spaces. After “The Shampoo,” Post finds that another domestic poem about Bishop’s love for Lota de Macedo Soares. “Song for the Rainy Season” “… continues the association of eros and aqua, both life-giving forces in Brazil” (97).
“Bishop is the great travel poet of our modern era,” chapter 6 begins authoritatively (103). “[L]yric time and leisurely thinking” are observed by Bishop in a 1965 letter to Robert Lowell referring to “Walking Early Sunday Morning.” At the back of the book we can find reference to Roger Gilbert’s influential Walks in the World: Representation and Experience in Modern American Poetry from 1991. Post locates “‘The End of March’ [a]s a ‘walk poem’ along the shore south of Boston …” (104). Complexity overflows from this poem, especially its accumulative ending. As often the case, Wallace Stevens is read into this poem’s mechanics. To me, the whole poem can be read as a dialogue with Stevens’ metrical form and his imagination embodied in lion figures; Post chooses the “lion of the spirit” from “An Ordinary Evening in New Haven.” Back in 1991’s Questions of Mastery, Bonnie Costello discussed Bishop’s use of Stevens’ lion sun while referring to Harold Bloom’s prior interpretations. The richness of “The End of March” and Bishop’s meta-dialogue with Stevens endures — partly because Bishop’s poem is so playful with its “artichoke” crypto-dream house and flaming “grog a l’americaine” Stevens would enjoy, also because readers can choose a suitable measure of rich textural engagement within the basic message of the poem: “Go for a walk, especially along a beach. It might change your mood, your inner weather, for the better” (116).
From
the influential author of “Sunday Morning” to “Bishop’s ultimate Sunday poem,”
(117) we go to Santarem where the poet’s mind is in motion again; amidst the
“dazzling dialectic” of converging blue and brown rivers, an older Bishop plays
with self-correction, as pinpointed in Post’s knowledge of rhetorical figures:
the
device of ‘metanoi’, meaning ‘afterthought’, for the first time
she
confuses church and cathedral, then again as ‘epanorthosis’
or
‘emphatic correction’, by enjambing the phrase across a stanza
break
and adding an exclamation point: ‘the church | (Cathedral,
rather!)’.
(117)
And yet everything is so well remembered about this place “in which contemplation wins out over commerce” (119). This subtle use of Bishop’s “Large Bad Picture,” and its dialectical “commerce or contemplation” is doubtfully picked up by many introductory readers, and so it remains an unacknowledged reference.
Jonathan
Post in his epilogue does refer to “the classroom. For a number of years, I
taught Bishop in a seminar called, simply, ‘How to Read a Poem’” (120). It is
this pleasure that jumps off the page. One feels the company of a master who
makes it easy, in his own words,
…
because Bishop is so good at taking you through the steps.
First
step, look closely; second step, look closer still; third step
look
even more closely, but especially now with an eye to where
the
poem is going, not to where you think it should be going,
but
where its diction, syntax, grammar, and punctuation
lead.
This means listening to the poem, bringing the ear out of
hiding
in order to help the eye to see and the mind to think.
Bishop’s
poems are always about surfaces getting deeper, about
knowledge
as process. (121)
She “makes us feel that we’re all there as part of the poem’s creative energy at the moment of its arriving” (123).
********************
Angus
Cleghorn teaches English at Seneca College in Toronto, and once explored the
Moose route in Nova Scotia during a stay at the Bishop-Bulmer house in Great
Village.
No comments:
Post a Comment