“The element of wit has to be present; there is nothing duller or more unmalleable than serious conviction, seriously expressed.”
“I want to
write you rather fully about the problem of argument in poetry, but cannot do
it properly today. Of course, everything is material for poems—even the ‘passive suffering’ (sometimes), that Yeats deplored; but argument should be dramatized,
as Yeats learned to dramatize, rather than projected straight—the dramatic
monologue helps.”
Bogan’s
right. We’ll accept almost any sentiment as entertainable, so long as it is
expressed by a character, a voice in the poem rather than the poet orating. The
same goes for fiction. Critics politely refer to novels with characters who serve
as the author’s mouthpiece as “essayistic.” Other words are “lazy,” “didactic” and "tiresome." Bogan continues:
“It is
impossible really to argue, in lyric poetry, because too many abstractions tend
to creep in—and abstract ideas must get a coating of sensuous feeling before
they become true poetic material; unless one is a born satirist.”
She notes
that Auden often argues but “with much satire involved.” Here’s the conclusion
of Bogan’s letter to Sarton:
“Certainly ‘unadulterated
life’ must be transposed, although it need not be ‘depersonalized.’ Otherwise
you get ‘self-expression’ only; and that is only half of art. The other half is
technical, as well as emotional, and the most poignant poems are those in which
the technique takes up the burden of the feeling instantly; and that
presupposes a practised [sic]
technique.”
Appropriately for a March 17 letter,
Bogan cites Yeats and signs off with “Love on the day of all the Patricks!”
[You can find Bogan’s letter in A Poet’s Prose: Selected Writings of Louise Bogan (ed. Mary Kinzie, Swallow Press/Ohio University Press, 2005).]
No comments:
Post a Comment