Mountains Loom and I Won’t Stop Now

Naomi Long Madgett, 1923-2020

Thursday

African American poet Naomi Long Madgett has just died at 97. Her poem “Midway,” published in 1959 when the Civil Rights movement was heating up, inspired many.

I can imagine this past summer’s Black Lives Matter marchers thrilling to the poem, with its bouncy rhythm. Note how you first have to speed up the tempo in many of the lines, only to slow down in the second half in a way that emphasizes the message “I’ve come this far to freedom and I won’t turn back,” she begins, while concluding, “Mighty mountains loom before me and I won’t stop now.”

If you want a lift, chant it out loud. And don’t stop now.

I’ve come this far to freedom and I won’t turn back
I’m climbing to the highway from my old dirt track
     I’m coming and I’m going
     And I’m stretching and I’m growing
And I’ll reap what I’ve been sowing or my skin’s not black
I’ve prayed and slaved and waited and I’ve sung my song
You’ve bled me and you’ve starved me but I’ve still grown strong
     You’ve lashed me and you’ve treed me
     And you’ve everything but freed me
But in time you’ll know you need me and it won’t be long.
I’ve seen the daylight breaking high above the bough
I’ve found my destination and I’ve made my vow;
     So whether you abhor me
     Or deride me or ignore me
Mighty mountains loom before me and I won’t stop now.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

Lit for Understanding the Biden Voter

Wednesday

A smart Gene Robinson column in The Washington Post has sent me to August Wilson’s plays, starting with Fences. This in order to understand “the Joe Biden voter.”

Robinson is teasing the media here over its obsession with “the Trump voter”:

After Donald Trump won in 2016, the media and academia embarked on a numbingly comprehensive sociological and anthropological examination of “the Trump voter.” Reporters and researchers swarmed what seemed like every bereft factory town in the industrial Midwest, every hill and hollow of Appalachia, every windswept farming community throughout the Great Plains. I’m pretty sure television crews did, in fact, bring us reports from every single diner in the contiguous United States — at least, those where at least one regular patron wears overalls.

For a while, the “economic anxiety” explanation prevailed until it was learned that many Trump voters had incomes of over $100,000 a year. We’ve since learned that Trump’s racism probably was more of a factor—which is to say, status and culture anxiety trumped economic anxiety. In any event, if Trump voters have gotten most of the attention over the past four years, then maybe Biden voters should now.

Robinson begins his column with a series of question:

Who are they and what drove them to vote in such huge numbers, even during a pandemic? What makes them tick? Is it culture? Tribalism? Race? How did they come to their worldview, and why do they cling to it so passionately? What do they mean for the future of American democracy?

I’m talking about the opaque and inscrutable Joe Biden voter, of course.

To answer these questions, Robinson suggests that we set aside “those dog-eared copies of J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy” and turn to a different set of readings. Given that Biden captured 87% of the black vote and that black voters reversed his fortunes in the South Carolina primary, Robinson starts there.

He recommends books on “the great migration,” one of the largest population movements in the history of the world, where former slaves and their descendants flooded into northern cities looking for new opportunities. Robinson also recommends reading or streaming Wilson’s plays:

If you’re more of an audiovisual learner, scroll through your streaming service until you find one of the film adaptations of the seminal plays by August Wilson, who lived and wrote in Pittsburgh — The Piano Lesson, say, or Fences. (The most recent Wilson production, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” starring Viola Davis and the late Chadwick Boseman, won’t be available for streaming for another few weeks.

Fences is about Troy Maxson, a garbage collector in a Pittsburgh-like city, and his interactions with his wife, his two sons, a former cellmate, and a brother who has been brain damaged in World War II. We learn about Maxson’s clashes with an abusive sharecropper father, his stint in prison for robbery and manslaughter, and his current union job where he aspires to be a driver rather than one of the men handling the cans. One son sponges money off of him, the other is an aspiring college athlete who needs his signature for a university scholarship.

Maxson is alternatively sympathetic and infuriating. Although we don’t approve, we can understand why he sabotages his son’s sports career and why he commits adultery despite having an admirable wife. We also applaud how he passes along good values to his sons, faithfully turns over his paycheck to his wife every month, and stands up to his employers for his rights. In short, we don’t see him as a stereotype but as a complex human being, which is why Robinson recommends the play.

Robinson doesn’t go into why there’s a four in five chance that such a Wilson character would be a Joe Biden voter (Biden captured 82% of the black male vote), but we can see many reasons: Biden’s support for labor unions, for hard working Americans, for equal rights and equal opportunity, for racial justice, for second-chance opportunities for convicted felons, and for protection against loan sharks. (The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, once it’s allowed to operate again, could help Maxson out of an onerous furniture debt he’s been paying for years.)

One can see why someone with this perspective might not take a chance on a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren. To dream big–to swing for the fences–is to set yourself up to be crushed. Maxson’s son Cory should set his sights on a job at the A&P, Maxson feels, not on college. (On the other hand, I could see Cory, who eventually joins the Marines, becoming a Bernie Bro in a later age.)

Although he has a criminal record and out-of-wedlock children, Maxson doesn’t fit racist stereotypes. He doesn’t ask for handouts, he takes responsibility for his actions, he works hard to maintain his household, he looks after his injured brother, and he cares about his wife and sons (even though it doesn’t look like it at times). Here he is trying to explain to his wife of 18 years why he has a brief fling. The ellipses are his pauses:

Troy: Rose, I done tried all my life to live decent…to live a clean…hard…useful life. I tried to be a good husband to you. In every way I knew how. Maybe I come into the world backwards, I don’t know. But…you born with two strikes on you before you come to the plate. You got to guard it closely…always looking for the curve-ball on the inside corner. You can’t afford to let none get past you. You can’t afford a call strike. If you going down…you going down swinging. Everything lined up against you. What you gonna do. I fooled them, Rose. I bunted. When I found you and Cory and a halfway decent job…I was safe. Could nothing touch me. I wasn’t gonna strike out no more. I wasn’t going back to the penitentiary. I wasn’t gonna lay in the streets with a bottle of wine. I was safe. I had me a family. A job. I wasn’t gonna get that last strike. I was on first looking for one of them boys to knock me in. To get me home.

Rose: You should have stayed in my bed, Troy.

Troy: Then when I saw that gal…she firmed up my backbone. And I got to thinking that if I tried…I just might be able to steal second. Do you understand after eighteen years I wanted to steal second.

Rose: You should have held me tight. You should have grabbed me and held on.

Troy: I stood on first base for eighteen years and I thought…well, goddamn it…go on for it!

Rose today would definitely be for Biden, who won black women 92-8. Rose can afford to dream even less than Troy and would thus be leery of taking chances on a dream candidate. After all, she’s raising his kids, including (by the end of the play) the daughter of his mistress. She would be attuned to Obamacare (although Troy might get health insurance through his job), Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and food stamps. Look at the hard pragmatism that marks her response to Troy:

I been standing with you! I been right here with you, Troy. I got a life too. I gave eighteen years of my life to stand in the same spot with you. Don’t you think I ever wanted other things? Don’t you think I had dreams and hopes? What about my life? What about me? Don’t you think it ever crossed my mind to want to know other men? That I wanted to lay up somewhere and forget about my responsibilities?That I wanted someone to make me laugh so I could feel good? You not the only one who’s got wants and needs. But I held on to you, Trooy. I took all my feelings, my wants and needs, myd reams…and I buried them inside you. I planted a seed and watched and prayed over it. I planted myself inside you and waited to bloom. And it didn’t take me no eighteen years to find out the soil was hard and rocky and it wasn’t never gonna bloom.

Later on, after Troy has died, she explains her choice to Cory, who initially doesn’t want to attend the funeral:

I took on his life as mine and mixed up the pieces so that you couldn’t hardly tell which was which anymore. It was my choice. It was my life and I didn’t have to live it like that. But that’s what life offered me in the way of being a woman and I took it. I grabbed hold of it with both hands.

After recommending Wilson’s play, Robinson goes on to suggest other books that help explain why various constituencies voted for Biden. To understand white suburbia’s horror for Trump, for instance, he points to Bob Woodward’s Rage and Fear, Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist (“a must-read in many of those circles”), and Jacob Soboroff’s Separated: Inside an American Tragedy, about children torn from their asylum-seeking parents.  

Robinson then concludes his piece with a shoutout to Langston Hughes:

It turns out “the Biden voter” isn’t so mysterious and unknowable after all. “I, too, am America,” wrote the poet Langston Hughes. And if you haven’t read him yet, add him to the pile, too.

Yes, Hughes articulates a multicultural vision of America that drove many of us Biden voters to the polls. We didn’t just vote against Trump but for something noble and generous.

I, too, sing America.

I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen
When company comes,
But I laugh,
And eat well,
And grow strong.

Tomorrow,
I’ll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody’ll dare
Say to me,
“Eat in the kitchen,”
Then.

Besides,
They’ll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed—

I, too, am America.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments closed

A Wretch Concentered All in Self

Hogarth, David Garrick as Richard III

Tuesday

I write today to take issue with a New York Times article comparing Trump to various Shakespeare protagonists. He is not, I argue, going out like Julius Caesar or Richard III. I’ll accept the King Lear comparison—I’ve made it myself—but Lear ends by discovering a love beyond self, which I don’t see  on Trump’s horizon. I regard him rather as the doubly-dying wretch in Walter’s Scott’s “My Native Land.”

Here’s Peter Baker interviewing Shakespeare scholar Jeffrey R. Wilson, author of Shakespeare and Trump:

At times, Mr. Trump’s railing-against-his-fate outbursts seem like a story straight out of William Shakespeare, part tragedy, part farce, full of sound and fury. Is Mr. Trump a modern-day Julius Caesar, forsaken by even some of his closest courtiers? (Et tu, Bill Barr?) Or a King Richard III who wars with the nobility until being toppled by Henry VII? Or King Lear, railing against those who do not love and appreciate him sufficiently? How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless electorate.

“This is classic Act V behavior,” said Jeffrey R. Wilson, a Shakespearean scholar at Harvard who published the book “Shakespeare and Trump” this year. “The forces are being picked off and the tyrant is holed up in his castle and he’s growing increasingly anxious and he feels insecure and he starts blustering about his legitimate sovereignty and he starts accusing the opposition of treason.”

And further on:

With six weeks until he leaves office, Mr. Trump remains as unpredictable and erratic as ever. He may fire Mr. Barr or others, issue a raft of pardons to protect himself and his allies or incite a confrontation overseas. Like King Lear, he may fly into further rages and find new targets for his wrath.

“If there are these analogies between classic literature and society as it’s operating right now, then that should give us some big cause for concern this December,” said Mr. Wilson, the Shakespearean scholar. “We’re approaching the end of the play here and that’s where catastrophe always comes.”

My long-standing problem with comparing Trump to Shakespearean figures is that it elevates him. The man is not tragedy but farce, as I wrote in one post.

But because contrasts can be as productive as comparisons, let’s look at Julius Caesar and Richard III.

Noteworthy about our current moment is that GOP senators have not turned against him. In a recent Washington Post survey, only 27 of the 249 Republican members of Congress are acknowledging that Biden won the election. It’s as though Cassius, Brutus and company are all applauding Caesar for having crossed the Rubicon. Barr, a key Trump enabler until now, does not suddenly become noblest-Roman-of-them-all Brutus just because he’s finally admitting that there was no significant voter fraud. Like Cassius, the GOP may be lean and hungry, but lean and hungry currently supports Trump.

What about Richard III? Well, he has certainly been unscrupulous in his power grab. Instead of whining endlessly about being a victim, however, he displays courage under fire. Even Trump’s supporters aren’t praising him the way that Catesby praises Richard:

The king enacts more wonders than a man,
Daring an opposite to every danger:
His horse is slain, and all on foot he fights,
Seeking for Richmond in the throat of death.
Rescue, fair lord, or else the day is lost!

There is no resemblance between Trump’s frivolous lawsuits and Richard fighting to the death:

Richard: A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!

Catesby: Withdraw, my lord; I’ll help you to a horse.

Richard: Slave, I have set my life upon a cast,
And I will stand the hazard of the die:
I think there be six Richmonds in the field;
Five have I slain to-day instead of him.
A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!

Now, one could make a case for a Biden comparison with Richmond, the future Henry VII. Here he is proclaiming victory:

God and your arms be praised, victorious friends,
The day is ours, the bloody dog is dead.

Richard then goes on to pardon those who fought against him. Like Biden, he wants there to be an end to bloody partisanship and offers himself and his diplomatic marriage with Elizabeth as the answer to England’s civil strife. He proclaims the war between the Yorks and the Lancasters to be over:

Proclaim a pardon to the soldiers fled
That in submission will return to us:
And then, as we have ta’en the sacrament,
We will unite the white rose and the red:
Smile heaven upon this fair conjunction,
That long have frown’d upon their enmity!
What traitor hears me, and says not amen?
England hath long been mad, and scarr’d herself;
The brother blindly shed the brother’s blood,
The father rashly slaughter’d his own son,
The son, compell’d, been butcher to the sire:
All this divided York and Lancaster,
Divided in their dire division,
O, now, let Richmond and Elizabeth,
The true succeeders of each royal house,
By God’s fair ordinance conjoin together!

There’s currently a debate about whether Biden’s Justice Department should prosecute the Trump for crimes committed during his presidency or just forget and move on. Richmond’s decision is useful here. He distinguishes between those who fought nobly against him and those who are still intent on stirring up conflict. He has death in mind for those who would once again “make poor England weep in streams of blood”:

Abate the edge of traitors, gracious Lord,
That would reduce these bloody days again,
And make poor England weep in streams of blood!
Let them not live to taste this land’s increase
That would with treason wound this fair land’s peace!

In short, he announces that, whether his future actions, whether merciful or stern, will be done with the future of the kingdom in mind. It’s a good model for our next president.

As for Trump, however, I turn to Walter Scott for a final summation. Scott is talking about patriotism in the deepest sense—someone who puts his country first–and there’s no question that he would see our current president as a wretch “concentered all in self.”

My Native Land

   Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
   This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d,
As home his footsteps he hath turn’d
   From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;—
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored, and unsung.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Tolkien’s Key to Entering the Internet

The gates of Khazad-dûm

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Monday

I received the following note from a Stanford student studying both computer science and English. As Kartik Chandra notes,

It’s not often that there are Better Living Through Beowulf type moments in the world of software… but just as you have a thesis that literature can save American politics, I have a thesis that literature can save the American tech industry.

Kartik’s example is an instance of how we can draw on literature’s powerful images to negotiate challenges. Just as engineers sometimes get their best ideas from studying nature—hummingbirds and helicopters, otters and wetsuits so literature can lead to creative thinking in other areas. Kartik elaborates:

The context is that the music recording industry association (the RIAA) recently had their lawyers demand that a piece of software called “youtube-dl” be taken down from the internet. The “youtube-dl” software lets you download YouTube videos for offline viewing, and the record industry argued that this was a violation of copyright law (I guess because they don’t want people downloading music for free). This caused a lot of drama! In response, the software authors’ legal counsel wrote a scathing letter. Here is the allusion, which is used to argue that the software is not maliciously circumventing any copyright protection measure:

To borrow an analogy from literature, travelers come upon a door that has writing in a foreign language. When translated, the writing says “say ‘friend’ and enter.” The travelers say “friend” and the door opens. As with the writing on that door, YouTube presents instructions on accessing video streams to everyone who comes asking for it.

The allusion, Tolkien fans will recognize, is from the inscription over the gates leading into Khazad-dûm or the mines of Moria in Fellowship of the Ring. The travelers are initially at a loss:

“What does the writing say?” asked Frodo, who was trying to decipher the inscription on the arch. “I thought I knew the elf-letters but I cannot read these.”

“The words are in the elven-tongue of the West of Middle-earth in the Elder Days,” answered Gandalf. “But they do not say anything of importance to us. They say only: The Doors of Durin, Lord of Moria. Speak, friend, and enter. And underneath small and faint is written: I, Narvi, made them. Celebrimbor of Hollin drew these signs.

“What does it mean by speak, friend, and enter?” asked Merry.

“That is plain enough,” said Gimli. “If you are a friend, speak the password, and the doors will open, and you can enter.”

Then Gandalf figures it out:

With a suddenness that startled them all the wizard sprang to his feet. He was laughing! “I have it!” he cried. “Of course, of course! Absurdly simple, like most riddles when you see the answer.”

Picking up his staff he stood before the rock and said in a clear voice: Mellon!

The star shone out briefly and faded again. Then silently a great doorway was outlined, though not a crack or joint had been visible before. Slowly it divided in the middle and swung outwards inch by inch, until both doors lay back against the wall. Through the opening a shadowy stair could be seen climbing steeply up; but beyond the lower steps the darkness was deeper than the night. The Company stared in wonder.

“I was wrong after all,” said Gandalf, “and Gimli too. Merry, of all people, was on the right track. The opening word was inscribed on the archway all the time! The translation should have been: Say “Friend” and enter. I had only to speak the Elvish word for friend and the doors opened. Quite simple. Too simple for a learned lore-master in these suspicious days. Those were happier times. Now let us go!”

Once a literary allusion gets made, then my mind naturally starts seeking out other applications. For instance, the world of the internet may have wondrous underground passages that allow us to travel faster than we otherwise could manage, but they are also inhabited by horrific balrogs that can take down even the wisest wizard. And then there are the trolls that run rampant through the caves.

Lothlórien may await us on the other side. But we have to get there safely first.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

A Mother’s Smile Prevails over Doubt

Il Divino, La Virgen de la leche

Spiritual Sunday

I can see why my good friend Sue Schmidt is “enthralled” with this e.e. cummings Christmas poem. Poets who attempt to describe spiritual mystery sometimes jolt us out of recognizable patterns in the hope that we can glimpse, for a moment, inexpressible transcendence. Disrupting recognizable patterns is cummings’s stock and trade.

The first line–“from spiraling ecstatically this”—captures our ecstasy at God’s incarnation in human form, spiraling like Dante’s ascension towards Paradiso. (With no starting point, the line seems to spiral upward to a final punctuated “this.”) The divine birth occurs in a “proud nowhere of earth’s most prodigious night,” having a time and a place but also being nowhere because it is transcends the mundane. (“In the world but not of it,” as Jesus puts it.) The newborn babe “blossoms,” and the hungry eyes that feast upon the manger scene—it takes a miracle to appease them—imagine kneeling before the Christ child.

Meanwhile, normal coordinates and realities–“time space doom dream”– break down in the face of this “perhapsless mystery of paradise.” While there should be no doubt, no “perhaps,” that God entered the world, the word is simultaneously presented and erased, a way of keeping the mystery both elusive (perhaps it happened) and definite (perhapsless). Cummings plays a similar game with “proud nowhere of earth’s most prodigious night.” It’s both there and it’s not.

There’s work to do as humans can be minds without souls: with nuclear weapons they can “blast some universe to might have been,and stop ten thousand stars.” The lack of spacing between “been” and “and stop” tightly links the potential destructive action with the consequences.

The blast cannot overcome “one heartbeat” of the Christ child, however, as love is more powerful than death. Mary’s quiet smile, meanwhile, will prevail over a “million questionings” or doubts. She privately expresses her spiraling secret ecstasy in the Magnificat—”My soul doth magnify the lord”–but it’s not so secret since all of creation sings it.

from spiraling ecstatically this

proud nowhere of earth’s most prodigious night
blossoms a newborn babe:around him,eyes
— gifted with ever keener appetite
than mere unmiracle can quite appease —
humbly in their imagined bodies kneel
(over time space doom dream while floats the whole

perhapsless mystery of paradise)

mind without soul may blast some universe
to might have been,and stop ten thousand stars
but not one heartbeat of this child;nor shall
even prevail a million questionings
against the silence of his mother’s smile

— whose only secret all creation sings

Sue Schmidt’s response: Before posting this, I sent it to Sue to ask for additional ideas. As I did, she struggled with “perhapsless mystery”:

I interpreted nowhere as a miracle that happens in a nondescript place, not transcendent necessarily, but both can read well.

Perhapsless  is a bit harder. Since Cummings says only a miracle can satisfy us, it seems it has to have happened.  Therefore prehapsless would seem to mean without perhaps in a normal rendering. But could there be more? Certainly it is a mystery, so perhaps might open questions,  perhaps it happened this way or perhaps it happened that way. (Mary is silent). But in the end what moves us is the mystery of it, and the power far greater than our basest inclinations and prodding questions.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

Citizen Kane and Trump’s Psychology

Cold mother Mary Kane (Agnes Moorehead) sells her son to a bank

Friday

An interchange I’ve been having with Lory of Emerald City Book Review, a fellow Carleton College alum, has reminded me of a poem my father wrote about Citizen Kane. We were probing Donald Trump’s psychology, and Scott Bates’s poem on Donald Trump’s favorite film supports Lory’s observations.

I was appalled, as we should all be, by the Trump administration’s child separation policies, to which Lory replied,

Have you read Mary L. Trump’s Too Much and Never Enough? I’m reading it now and it’s interesting. He is the product of a horribly dysfunctional family, I would say brain damaged by trauma and psychological abuse. His mother was absent, ill, or powerless during the crucial period of his childhood and his father was a sociopath. He’s repeating his personal drama through these horrible acts, as such damaged people tend to do. So sad, but it’s society’s task to stop it and not put him in a position of responsibility. I just can’t understand why so many are supporting him. Are they all products of dyfunction and abuse too? How deep does the problem go?

When I suggested that racism drives many Trump supporters, Lory folded that into the Trump family drama:

Racism was certainly embedded in the family too – the book points out that Trump Sr.’s real estate projects were intended for the white population, which historically lived in certain parts of the outer boroughs, and there was at least one lawsuit mentioned over exclusion of black tenants.

Will this ever be worked through? Not unless one changes direction and throws off one’s inheritance. Not something we can expect of Trump, but anyone with a conscience has to struggle with it now.

I grew up with my father’s passion for Citizen Kane, and in 1987 we collaborated on a Cinema Journal article that allowed me to explore what the film had meant to members of his generation, including Orson Welles. (You can find “Fiery Speech in a World of Shadows: Rosebud’s Impact on Early Audiences” if you google it.”) The following observation, about my father’s first encounter with the film while a freshman at Carleton, provided the article with its emotional and intellectual core:

When I first saw Citizen Kane with my college friends in 1941, it was in an America undergoing the powerful pressures of a coming war, full of populist excitement and revolutionary foreboding. But cynical Depression kids that we were, we had little hope for salvation through armed uprising. Nor did we believe any longer in America’s self-proclaimed values. Nevertheless, those values were still part of us, and it was America’s blind self-destruction that we instinctively recognized in the shattering experience of watching a little wooden sled go up in flames. From the moment the huge lips opened and said “Rosebud,” to the sled’s final immolation in the furnace of our desires, we were both thrilled and terror-stricken. It was the flaming consummation of sex and politics that we had been looking for in movie theatres all our young lives. We somehow knew that we had experienced our own flaming love-death and that it had taken place in the tragic heart of our country. Welles and Mankiewicz had revealed, in two short hours of perception, how energetically Miss America had been raped of her dream, of her promise, of her rose; and then how she had dutifully prostituted us, her own bastard children. We no longer had a place we could call home. Pessimistically, and yet with the hope of finding some sort of transcendence through great eschatological events, we let ourselves get drafted into the army…

In this grand drama, Kane is the autocrat who, as Lory puts it, has himself been “brain damaged by trauma and psychological abuse,” goes on to wreak revenge on the rest of the world. As he has been betrayed by his mother (rejected like Cain), so he betrays the women he invites into his life, even as (or rather, because) he thinks he sees tender mother love in their initial innocence. The final result in a heartless narcissist who uses his wealth and celebrity to destroy everything around him. As Lory says of Trump, He’s repeating his personal drama through these horrible acts, as such damaged people tend to do.”

Citizen Cain
Am I my brother’s keeper?

Out of her cozy snow-covered
cabin of a crystal ball
his mother sold
him to the banks;

so he bought Venuses
in Europe and started
a war in the Caribbean.

And since he could not slide
on his little wooden sled
back into his mother’s house

or change her land of silver and politics
into a sunny pleasure dome
with Abyssinian jazz and picnic on the beach,

he grew roses and power

and ravished the niece of a President
and then a simple singing girl
and then the motherland.

In Trump’s case, substitute Mar-a-Lago for Kane’s Xanadu while seeing his sexual assault and harassment cases as representing a longing for lost innocence, coupled with revenge for mother betrayal. Roses represent the innocence, power the way to make sure he is never hurt that way again.

Late in the film, the reporter Thompson observes that he can’t help but feel sorry for Kane, and Kane’s ex-wife Susan Alexander agrees. It’s useful to understand the psychology of a wannabe tyrant.

To understand is not to excuse, however. And it certainly doesn’t excuse all the Republicans who refuse to call him out.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

Peeped Most Piteously for Pain of the Cold

Purple finch

Thursday

Although our first snowfall of the season delivered only a couple of inches, our bird feeders are being assaulted by hoards of chickadees, tufted titmice, nuthatches, cardinals, Carolina wrens, purple finches, goldfinches, yellow bellied sapsuckers and downy, hairy, and red-headed woodpeckers.

I think of the passage from Sir Gawain and the Green Knight where Gawain is at the end of the rope as he searches for the “Green Chapel,” the site of his rendezvous with the Green Knight. While we aren’t given a direct insight into how he’s feeling—as a Camelot knight, he’s not supposed to have doubts—we get a pretty good sense from the surrounding description. Alone and depressed, Gawain can identify with the birds “upon bare twigs that peeped most piteously for pain of the cold”:

By a mountain next morning he makes his way
Into a forest fastness fearsome and wild;
High hills on either hand, with hoar woods below,
Oaks old and huge by the hundred together.
The hazel and the hawthorn were all intertwined
With rough raveled moss, that raggedly hung,
With many birds unblithe upon bare twigs
That peeped most piteously for pain of the cold . . .

Here’s a poem by the Victorian poet Oliver Herford with a different take. The very fact that we hear birdsong at this time of year reminds us that the cold will not last forever.

I heard a bird sing
In the dark of December.
A magical thing
And sweet to remember.

"We are nearer to Spring 
Than we were in September,” 
I heard a bird sing 
In the dark of December. 

Incidentally, ornithologists don’t know why birds sing in the winter since mating season is months away. Some think it is to stay in practice, others (although this would only be true after December 21) that that they are responding to increasing day length. This latter theory, which I owe to National Geographic and the Lyric Wild Bird Food website, accords nicely with Herford’s poem:

Since these winter songbirds evolved to survive in harsh winter conditions, it makes sense that their brains are attuned to the changes in seasonal light. This increasing amount of light may trigger something in the brain that the time is coming to start thinking about spring territories.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments closed

In “Crown,” Philip Gets Auden, Not Keats

Menzies as Philip in “The Crown”; Neil Armstrong

Wednesday

As Julia, my mother and I have been catching up on season #3 of The Crown, I’ve noticed several episodes where literature plays a pivotal role. A Kipling poem sets the wheels in motion for a potential rightwing coup; a Shakespeare monologue consoles a prince starved for affection; and Keats and (indirectly) Auden figure prominently in an episode about the moon landing and Prince Philip’s midlife crisis.

Labor Prime Minister Harold Wilson, facing the need to reduce the size of the military as Britain wrestles with its post-empire identity, fires head of the military Lord Louis Mountebatten. The former Viceroy of India thereupon delivers a fiery speech recalling Great Britain’s glory days, and this in turn leads a ringwing newspaper editor to ask him to lead a coup. In a tense interim that is unsettlingly relevant as we watch Trump attempt to overturn election results, Mountebatten seriously considers leading the movement until the queen talks him out of it.

Her primary responsibility, she tells him, is to the Constitution.

Mountebatten delivers the last stanza of “Mandalay,” and by the poem’s end, the entire audience has risen to its feet and is reciting it along with him:

Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst,
Where there aren’t no Ten Commandments an’ a man can raise a thirst;
For the temple-bells are callin’, an’ it’s there that I would be
By the old Moulmein Pagoda, looking lazy at the sea;
On the road to Mandalay,
Where the old Flotilla lay,
With our sick beneath the awnings when we went to Mandalay!
O the road to Mandalay,
Where the flyin’-fishes play,
An’ the dawn comes up like thunder outer China ‘crost the Bay !

Say what you will about British fascists, at least these ones recite poetry rather than chant “Lock her up!” or “Build that wall!”

The poem itself isn’t fascist—I’ve written about Kipling’s mixed relationship colonialism —but it plugs into revanchist nostalgia and the dream of making Britain great again.

In another episode, this one about Charles attending a Welsh university so that he can deliver his investiture as Prince of Wales speech in Welsh, we see how desperate he is for emotional support. His mother, believing that duty is duty, is impatient with Charles’s longing for something more. He therefore finds himself relating to Shakespeare’s Richard II, who upon Bolingbroke’s rebellion discovers that his royal blood does not protect him:

For you have but mistook me all this while:
I live with bread like you, feel want,
Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus,
How can you say to me, I am a king?

The emotional core of the episode couldn’t be better summarized.

In the moon landing episode, the queen’s husband Prince Philip is riveted by the adventure, unaware that his fascination masks a profound unhappiness with his own dull life. (I am reminded of Fellini’s heavy-handed symbol in 8 ½, where a rocket that fails to launch captures the filmmaker’s own midlife crisis.) When Philip meets the astronauts in Buckingham Palace, he wants them to have grappled with the meaning of life and is disturbed that that they are technicians more than romantic adventurers. He wants but fails to get the poetry of Keats, whose passage about the moon (in Endymion) is quoted by a television newscaster:

What is there in thee, Moon! That thou should’st move
My heart so potently?

Philip’s disenchantment reminds me of Christine’s in Jean Renoir’s masterpiece Rules of the Game. She falls in love with a daring aviator who crosses the English Channel at night, only to discover he has a bourgeois soul. As her friend Octave explains to her,

You have to understand, it’s the plight of all heroes today. In the air, they’re terrific. But when they come back to earth, they’re weak, poor, and helpless.”

A similar message is to be found in the Auden poem, which is never mentioned but hovers over the episode. (See my detailed analysis of it here.) It too regards the moon landing as an assertion of masculinity, and not in a good way:

It’s natural the Boys should whoop it up for
    so huge a phallic triumph, an adventure
        it would not have occurred to women
        to think worthwhile, made possible only

    because we like huddling in gangs and knowing
    the exact time: yes, our sex may in fairness
        hurrah the deed, although the motives
        that primed it were somewhat less than menschlich.

    A grand gesture. But what does it period?
    What does it osse? We were always adroiter
        with objects than lives, and more facile
        at courage than kindness: from the moment

    the first flint was flaked this landing was merely
    a matter of time. But ourselves, like Adam’s,
        still don’t fit us exactly, modern
        only in this—our lack of decorum.

    Homer’s heroes were certainly no braver
    than our Trio, but more fortunate: Hector
        was excused the insult of having
        his valor covered by television.

    Worth going to see? I can well believe it.
    Worth seeing? Mneh! I once rode through a desert
        and was not charmed: give me a watered
        lively garden, remote from blatherers

    about the New, the von Brauns and their ilk, where
    on August mornings I can count the morning
        glories where to die has a meaning,
        and no engine can shift my perspective.

    Unsmudged, thank God, my Moon still queens the Heavens
    as She ebbs and fulls, a Presence to glop at,
        Her Old Man, made of grit not protein,
        still visits my Austrian several

    with His old detachment, and the old warnings
    still have power to scare me: Hybris comes to
        an ugly finish, Irreverence
        is a greater oaf than Superstition.

    Our apparatniks will continue making
    the usual squalid mess called History:
        all we can pray for is that artists,
        chefs and saints may still appear to blithe it.

Prince Philip has learned something similar by the end of the episode: at his rector’s invitation, he has joined a group of priests experiencing midlife crises of faith and has learned Auden’s lesson that “we were  always adroiter/ with objects than lives, and more facile/ at courage than kindness.” Or at least a certain kind of courage. As he tells the group, it takes him more courage to join their group than it took the astronauts to go to the moon.

Grand gestures, he comes to learn, will not take him as far as listening to artists and saints.

Another poetic sighting: The episode on Princess Margaret, who tells her sister that the Queen’s role is to paper over the cracks in the British national identity, concludes with yet another poem. This one, composed for the queen’s jubilee by poet laureate John Betjemann, reads like a throwback to the 18th century, when poets strove to flatter rich patrons while, at the same time, writing good poetry. Some succeeded more than others.

The best would slip in subtle criticism. No such cracks appear in Betjemann’s “Jubilee Hymn,” however.

In days of disillusion,
However low we've been
To fire us and inspire us
God gave to us our Queen.

She acceded, young and dutiful,
To a much-loved father's throne;
Serene and kind and beautiful,
She holds us as her own.

And twenty-five years later
So sure her reign has been
That our great events are greater
For the presence of our Queen.

Hers the grace the Church has prayed for,
Ours the joy that she is here.
Let the bells do what they're made for!
Ring our thanks both loud and clear.

From that look of dedication
In those eyes profoundly blue
We know her coronation
As a sacrament and true.

Chorus
For our Monarch and her people,
United yet and free,
Let the bells from ev'ry steeple
Ring out loud the jubilee.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

The Sexual Politics of Circe-Odysseus

Angelika Kauffman, Odysseus and Circe

Tuesday

While reading Madeline Miller’s Circe, which I wrote about yesterday, I watched how she engages with previous literary depictions of Circe, Odysseus, and others. I think that she especially owes a debt to Margaret Atwood’s “Circe/Mud Poems,” which were important to the feminist movement in the 1970s and which I applied to the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.

Aware as I was of Atwood’s Odysseus–he’s an oblivious man whose sense of entitlement blinds him to his privilege–I was confused by Miller’s initially positive depiction. After all, with the exception of Homer, authors have not been kind to the Ithacan.  Sophocles (Philoctetes) and Euripides (Hecuba) regard him as an unscrupulous schemer, as does Virgil in The Aeneid. Dante puts him in the eighth circle of hell as one who misuses his tremendous talents to lead men astray, and Tennyson, drawing on Dante rather than Homer, is highly ambivalent. While many read Tennyson’s stirring lines as approval—”Come, my friends,/ ‘T is not too late to seek a newer world”—it is this very quality that leads Dante to put him in Inferno: Ulysses’s glib tongue leads his men to their destruction. Here’s Tennyson:

                   [F]or my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

It so happens that listening to Ulysses puts you in the gulfs, not the Happy Isles. Here’s Dante:

"I and my men were stiff and slow with age
when we sailed at last into the narrow pass
where, warning all men back from further voyage,

Hercules' Pillars rose upon our sight.
Already I had left Ceuta on the left;
Seville now sank behind me on the right.

"Shipmates," I said, "who through a hundred thousand
perils have reached the West, do not deny
to the brief remaining watch our senses stand

Experience of the world beyond the sun.
Greeks! You were not born to live like brutes,
but to press on toward manhood and recognition!'

With this brief exhortation I made my crew
so eager for the voyage I could hardly
have held them back from it when I was through;

and turning our stem toward morning, our bow toward night,
we bore southwest out of the world of man;
we made wings of our oars for our fool's flight.

That night we raised the other pole ahead
with all its stars, and ours had so declined
it did not rise out of its ocean bed.

Five times since we had dipped our bending oars
beyond the world, the light beneath the moon
had waxed and waned, when dead upon our course

we sighted, dark in space, a peak so tall
I doubted any man had seen the like.
Our cheers were hardly sounded, when a squall

broke hard upon our bow from the new land:
three times it sucked the ship and the sea about
as it pleased Another to order and command.

At the fourth, the poop rose and the bow went down
till the sea closed over us and the light was gone."
(Trans. John Ciardi)

Ulysses isn’t the only inhabitant of hell that Tennyson alludes to. Ulysses’s celebration of will power directly echoes Milton’s Satan, whose eloquence also leads his followers to their destruction:

What though the field be lost?
All is not lost—the unconquerable will
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield…

As I noted in an earlier post ,

Tennyson recognizes that there’s something Satanic in Ulysses’s drive and golden tongue. Not man enough to govern Ithaca, which he relegates to a son whom he regards as soft, he will sacrifice his crew to satisfy his restless striving. Unlike [William Ernest] Henley [in “Invictus”], Tennyson sees the dark side of heroic individualism.

America has just traded in a man whose tongue enflamed millions for a low-key, competent leader. Which would you rather have?

Back to Circe’s Miller, whose view of Odysseus eventually evolves to something closer to Dante’s and Tennyson’s descriptions. If her Circe initially speaks positively of Odysseus, it is because she too is snowed by him. As a result, she gives the son she has had by him (Telegonus) a mistaken account of his father, leading to disastrous consequences.

Miller’s Circe has a much healthier relationship with Telemachus, who becomes her partner and in whom she discovers unexpected depth. In preferring the son to the father, she chooses the sensitive man over the man of action. In Tennyson’s poem, this man of action regards his son with thinly-veiled contempt, all but calling him a bureaucratic drudge. Don’t be deceived by the “most blameless is he,” which is a back-handed compliment:

         This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the sceptre and the isle,—
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfil
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and thro' soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness, and pay
Meet adoration to my household gods,
When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.

Both Miller’s and Atwood’s Circe must evolve in their taste for men, from dominant to sensitive. Atwood’s Circe at first allows Odysseus to control her, admiring his male forcefulness. Writing in 1974, Atwood is criticizing those women who let men walk all over them:

There are so many things I want
you to have. This is mine, this
tree, I give you its name,

here is food, white like roots, red,
growing in the marsh, on the shore,
I pronounce these names for you also.

This is mine, this island, you can have
the rocks, the plants
that spread themselves flat over
the thin soil, I renounce them.

You can have this water,
this flesh, I abdicate,

I watch you, you claim
without noticing it,
you know how to take.

Eventually Atwood’s Circe comes to see the emptiness that Dante detects. The vaunted heroic adventure involves nothing more than “permit[ting] yourself to be shoved by the wind from coast to coast to coast,” even as you tell yourself that you’re the one in control:

There must be more for you to do
than permit yourself to be shoved
by the wind from coast
to coast to coast, boot on the boat prow
to hold the wooden body
under, soul in control

And

Don’t you get tired of killing
those whose deaths have been predicted
and are therefore dead already?

Don’t you get tired
of wanting to live forever?

Don’t you get tired of saying Onward?

Atwood’s Circe eventually learns that there is more to life than domination:

Ask at my temples
where the moon snakes, tongues of the dark
speak like bones unlocking, leaves falling
of a future you won’t believe in

Ask who keeps the wind
Ask what is sacred

Miller’s Circe arrives at the same understanding after her father, the sun god Aeetes, exiles her to an island for challenging him:

I stepped into the woods and my life began.

I learned to braid my hair back, so it would not catch on every twig, and how to tie my skirt at the knee to keep the burrs off. I learned to recognize the different blooming vines and gaudy roses, to spot the shining dragonflies and coiling snakes. I climbed the peaks where the cypresses speared black into the sky, then clambered down to the orchards and vineyards where purple grapes grew thick as coral. I walked the hills, the buzzing meadows of thyme and lilac, and set my footprints across the yellow beaches. I searched out every cove and grotto, found the gentle bays, the harbor safe for ships. I heard the wolves howl, and the frogs cry from their mud. I stroked the glossy brown scorpions who braved me with their tails. Their poison was barely a pinch. I was drunk, as the wine and nectar in my father’s halls had never made me. No wonder I have been so slow, I thought. All this while I have been a weaver without wool, a ship without the sea. Yet now look where I sail.

…And when I did get lonely, … then there was always the forest. The lizards darted along the branches, the birds flashed their wings. The flowers, when they saw me, seemed to press forward like eager puppies, leaping and clamoring for my touch.

Miller doesn’t entirely reject enterprising men and makes Circe’s son Telegonus—hero of the lost Greek epic The Telegony—an adventurer who will found a kingdom. (To confuse stereotypes, however, she also makes him gay.) Once Circe sees through Odysseus, however, she comes to appreciate Telemachus, who rejects the destiny that the goddess Athena has in store for him. Rather than engage in killing—having slain the Ithacan handmaids at his father’s command still haunts him—he wants to do woodwork and live with Circe. This Telemachus may be the kind of man that Atwood has in mind when she talks of those who “have escaped from these mythologies with barely their lives”:

Men with the heads of eagles
no longer interest me
or pig-men, or those who can fly
with the aid of wax and feathers

or those who take off their clothes
to reveal other clothes
or those with skins of blue leather

or those golden and flat as a coat of arms
or those with claws, the stuffed ones
with glass eyes; or those
hierarchic as greaves and steam-engines.

All these I could create, manufacture,
or find easily: they swoop and thunder
around this island, common as flies,
sparks flashing, bumping into each other,

on hot days you can watch them
as they melt, come apart,
fall into the ocean
like sick gulls, dethronements, plane crashes..

I search instead for the others,
the ones left over,
the ones who have escaped from these
mythologies with barely their lives;
they have real faces and hands, they think
of themselves as
wrong somehow, they would rather be trees.

Another election aside: we’re currently seeing the defeated Donald Trump “melt, come apart, fall into the ocean” like a sick gull,

I remember this poem being very important to me as a man when I read it in the early 1980s. It reminds me of Adrienne Rich’s “The Knight,” which is also about men who believe they must present a glittering image to the world, even as they are disintegrating inside. Given that we have been through four years of a president celebrating toxic masculinity, Miller’s Telemachus comes as a relief.

Mythic archetypes provide authors with fertile ground for exploring foundational identity questions. Miller’s Circe is, at different points in the story, obedient child, rebellious daughter, vengeful rival, nurturing earth mother, powerful witch, fierce warrior, protective mother, and loving wife. The novel is a worthy entry in the long and distinguished history of authors turning to the Odysseus story to understand the human condition.

Further thought: I haven’t mentioned Miller’s handling of Penelope, a survivor wife who keeps her own counsel. Penelope ends up on Circe’s island and, in Circe’s suggestion that she might enjoy mentoring young women, I recognized a nod to Atwood’s Penelopiad, which features Penelope’s complex relationship with her handmaids.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed