Conclusion: Activating Literature’s Power

Gotthardt Kuehl, Lubeck Orphanage (1894)

Monday

Over the past 10 years or so, I’ve shared chapters from the book I’ve been writing. I will be sending it off this week. Today’s post is the conclusion, which I’ve just revised for the umpteenth time. Enjoy and don’t hesitate to send me feedback.

Conclusion: Activating Literature’s Power
from Better Living through Literature: The Power of Books to Change Your Life

During the 1950s and 1960s when I was a child, people believed that reading literature made one a better person. Between fiction and drama’s unique abilities to immerse us in imaginary worlds and poetry’s power to affix our minds with powerful images, literature appeared to have life-changing potential. Granted, my own view of the matter was skewed, raised as I was by bookish parents in the hometown of the Sewanee Review, but that faith wasn’t limited to the college educated. My wife’s family, small farmers in southeast Iowa, subscribed to a Book of the Month club, from which they would regularly receive literary classics. Meanwhile, nationwide, Reader’s Digest found an audience for a series of masterpieces made easily digestible through abridgement.

The country may well have turned to literature in those post-war years out of hope that the creative imagination would counterbalance what had been one of the most traumatizing half centuries in human history. At some deep level, people recognized that poems and stories could help us push back against, or at least provide a counter perspective to, the bloodlettings of two world wars, a worldwide influenza outbreak, a worldwide depression, and murderous dictators in Italy, Germany, Spain, the Soviet Union, Japan, and China. Because literature provides special insight into what it means to be human even in difficult circumstances, we thought that literature, perhaps, would help us rebuild a better world.

As we have seen in these pages, those hopeful readers have had plenty of company throughout the ages. Many of history’s greatest thinkers have seen the life-changing effects that poems and stories have had on their own lives and then explored the impact they can have on the lives of others. We’ve seen Plato, who was shaken to the core by The Odyssey, warning about the danger posed by such passions running unchecked in civil society. We’ve seen Aristotle, a brilliant political scientist, counterarguing that tragedy-induced catharsis prepares citizens for good governance. The Aeneid so inspired Sir Philip Sidney that he regarded it as must reading for men going to war, and he may well have conjured up Virgilian battle scenes as he fought his last battle in the Spanish occupied Netherlands. Samuel Johnson attributed much of his profound understanding into human nature to his visceral encounters with Shakespeare’s tragedies, King Lear especially.

And so it has been with the others profiled here. As he witnessed men and women fighting for individual rights in the early 19th century, Percy Shelley recognized energies that are also at work in poets who wrote centuries earlier, including Aeschylus, Sophocles, Dante, and Shakespeare. Utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill, paralyzed by depression when his vision of a more just and egalitarian society appeared to have reached a dead end, found a way forward thanks to the poetry of William Wordsworth, especially his poem Intimations of Immortality. (Mill would go on to become one of the pioneers of a liberal arts education.) Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’s attributed many of their history-changing insights into the nature of 19th century capitalism to Balzac’s Human Comedy novels, which they deeply admired, and if Sigmund Freud is the founder of modern psychology and the primary developer of the process of psychoanalysis, it is in part thanks to the impact that Oedipus and Hamlet had upon him. Sandra Gilbert made major contributions to the feminist movement, especially the articulation of female anger and determination, thanks to her love affair with Jane Eyre, and Wayne Booth and Martha Nussbaum’s compelling accounts of how literature can promote multicultural democracy are rooted in their own immersive reading experiences, especially Jane Austen and Mark Twain for Booth and Sophocles, Euripides, Henry James, and Ralph Ellison for Nussbaum.

We’ve discussed some of the reasons why, despite the surge of interest in literature following World War II, scholars downplayed its practical effects upon readers, a view too often passed on to future English teachers. But while some of that skepticism continues to linger on literature classrooms, many believe that literature can play a vital role in creating a more diverse and tolerant society. That poems and stories can move us out of our narrow confines and provide us with a more expansive view of the world is why former colonized populations, women, African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, LBGTQ folk, the physically and neurologically challenged, and other members of historically marginalized groups have found it so powerful.

Literature’s success in opening minds to multicultural pluralism is also a major reason why certain noteworthy authors became the target of conservatives in the culture wars of the late 1980s and early 1990s and why rightwing forces today are increasing their attacks on school libraries and classroom curricula, not to mention public schools themselves. Several times in these pages I’ve compared reading literature to playing with dynamite or waving a loaded gun, and many rightwing extremists would agree. They fear that once young readers—or readers of any age—immerse themselves in books, powerful feelings, ideas, and even movements will be unleashed. While rightwingers and liberals don’t agree in much, they both regard literature as potentially lifechanging.

The question before us, then, is less whether literature can change lives, but rather how and to what end? The thinkers surveyed in this book provide a variety of answers, and if I have done justice to their ideas, you can draw on them in formulating your own view of the matter. Speaking for myself, two thinkers in particular stand out. Riffing off a Charlie Chaplin observation, I use Percy Shelley for long view, Wayne Booth for close-up. As Shelley sees it, great literature helps bend the long arc of history towards freedom while Booth believes that literature is the ideal friend for negotiating our day-to-day challenges. Between them, they provide a powerful account of how literature can make our lives better.

Shelley, you will recall, claims that poets are “the unacknowledged legislators of the world.” His underlying assumption is that humans long to step into their full potential, which is thwarted by various social and historical factors. The greatest literature understands this longing and gives voice to it—and in the process, helps make change happen. To be sure, as Shelley openly admits, sometimes the process is agonizingly slow. It may take centuries, if not millennia, for literary vision to be legislated into social practice. That’s one reason why poets are unacknowledged.

Yet audiences can at least catch a glimpse of human possibility within our poems and stories. Greek spectators at 5th century BCE Athenian plays, for instance, witnessed titanic female characters, even though women at the time were still being legally treated as second-class citizens. And yes, universal suffrage was still 2400 years away in the West. But when socio-economic conditions finally changed, feminist activists discovered that dramas that once seemed harmlessly entombed in dusty museums suddenly spoke with oracular power. Performances of Aeschylus’s Clytemnestra, Sophocles’s Antigone, and Euripides’s Medea in the 1970s, speaking a deep human truth, assured women that they could command the world stage. To apply the words of literary critic and philosopher Walter Benjamin, they seized hold of memories that flashed up at a moment of danger and opportunity. Literature transcended time and place as past works were “blasted out of the continuum of history” and became “charged with the time of the now.”

Shelley, then, was right about literature tapping into a timeless yearning for freedom. By capturing humanity’s “essential being,” to use Allan Bloom’s phrase, the great authors of every age uncork a power that can never be entirely put back in the bottle. The human truths they convey are universal because they cross racial, ethnic, gender, national, and other boundaries. Through these pages, we have been noting one instance after another of literature stepping up when history has sought to keep people down: Anna Karenina for an unjustly imprisoned doctor, Little Women for an abducted Pakistani girl, various Shakespeare plays for the members of South Africa’s African National Congress imprisoned by South Africa’s apartheid authorities. Black poet Maya Angelou turned to Charles Dickens’s abused Oliver Twist when figuring out how to process a particularly gruesome lynching, and W.E.B. Du Bois probably recalled his beloved Three Musketeers—and the slogan “All for one and one for all”—as he was founding the NAACP (1909), an organization that brought Blacks together so that they could resist the White terror that was undoing Reconstruction’s gains.

Citing these specific instances begins to move us from Shelley’s framing to Booth’s. The Chicago theorist’s vision of literary works as friends allows us to rethink our relationships to them. As he puts it, poems and stories call for us to practice “ways of living that are more profound, more sensitive, more intense, and in a curious way more fully generous than [we are] likely to meet anywhere else in the world.” Elsewhere he observes that they prompt us “to desire better desires.” I’ve recounted my own story of using Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird to negotiate my way through race hatred in the 1960s; of my former marine student using Sir Gawain and the Green Knight to work through his Afghanistan War experiences; of a student lacrosse student deciding to change his college behavior after identifying with the young man in Rime of the Ancient Mariner; of a student raised by Alabama fundamentalists using Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus to come to a more balanced view of reason and faith.

The notion of books as friends also makes it incumbent on us to figure out whether they are good for us. Is this an acquaintance who has our best interests at heart and words of useful advice or a friend whom we link up with because we just want to have a fun night out. Is this possibly a friend who is actually bad for us? It requires judgment and experience on our part to tell the difference. We must be critical in our reading just as we must be critical in our friendships.

Of course, caveats are always in order when discussing literature’s transformative power. Books by themselves can only do so much and, as revolutionary philosopher Frantz Fanon notes, sometimes they must work in conjunction with other forces to bring about meaningful change. And of course, given the bewildering range of responses that any individual work will elicit, it’s not always clear how the change process works. That’s why literature doesn’t lend itself readily to anyone with specific political goals, why it doesn’t submit itself tamely to outside agendas. Perhaps the most we can definitively say is that, if the literature is good, we can be confident of the results: it will move us emotionally in healthy directions and shape our thinking in positive ways. As we have noted, thinkers from Aristotle to Sir Philip Sidney to Samuel Johnson Percy Shelley to Friedrich Engels to W.E.B. Du Bois to Martha Nussbaum have noted that the best authors are those who are most true to experience and do most honor to humanity’s richness. In a 2018 New Yorker essay, Indian author Salman Rushdie, responding to the torrent of lies emanating from the Donald Trump White House, pointed out that the classics will always remain relevant because of their commitment to truth. At a time where political con artists face few constraints to manufacturing their own realities, we find in good literature a “no bullshit” zone, a friend that will have our deepest interests at heart.

And because this is the case, then a special responsibility is laid upon those who connect others with books, whether they be teachers, librarians, parents, critics, therapists, social workers, clergy, book discussion group leaders, or just friends recommending a good read. If you fit into one of these categories, as I suspect you do, then see yourself as one handling a rare, precious and, yes, sometimes dangerous substance. Sure, there are risks involved, but the risks are worth it because the potential payoff is so great. Your job, as a literature coach, is to listen closely to your charges’ concerns, steer them to the books that you think will do them the most good, listen closely to their reading experiences, and then help them interpret and apply what they have read. Oh, and then to get out of their way. Having linked them up with the power source they need and directed their attention to the switch, you must leave the rest to them.

As I write this, women across Iran are tearing off their head scarves, risking injury, imprisonment, and death to stand up for their freedom. And I think of how, around 40 years ago in Iran, literature professor Azar Nafisi turned her apartment into a classroom after she and her students were expelled from the university and forced into veils. One of the works they read was Lolita and another Pride and Prejudice.  I don’t know whether Nafisi could have predicted that they would find, in Nabokov’s novel, a depiction of the tyrannical men who were entrapping women in their own fantasies and, in Austen’s work, a radical call for women to resist social and parental pressure and to stand up for their right to make their own marital decisions. While these women might not have seen the road to effective political action at the time, maybe they are doing so now—or maybe they have passed some of that vision along to children and grandchildren. As Shelley notes, literature’s vision of freedom serves to keep the flame of hope alive in dark times, providing a space where the impossible can seem possible.

Throughout the centuries, great thinkers have understood the tremendous energies at work in literary language—which is to say, language at its most thoughtful and intense. From personal experience and from observation, they know that losing oneself in a great poem or story can turn one upside down and inside out, while tapping into and harnessing this force can lead to foundational change. One of the most powerful tools for leading us to the individual and the social transformation we crave is at our fingertips. We have but to immerse, reflect, and act.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed

Searching for God in the Trenches

World War I soldier

Spiritual Sunday

As yesterday was Armistice Day or Veterans’ Day (or “Remembrance Day,” as they refer to it here in Slovenia), here’s a poem by World War I poet Siegfried Sassoon. At the beginning, the speaker assumes that God is on his side, but when “fury smites the air,” doubts arise (“Now God is in the strife/ And I must seek him here”). By the end, he wonders whether he will be able to find God again.

The very fact that the soldier is asking signals hope. God loves us most when we are at our lowest. When material clay wonders whether it will ever hear divine music again, that’s when mystic search truly begins.

A Mystic as Soldier
By Siegfried Sassoon

I lived my days apart,
Dreaming fair songs for God;
By the glory in my heart
Covered and crowned and shod.

Now God is in the strife,
And I must seek Him there,
Where death outnumbers life,
And fury smites the air.

I walk the secret way
With anger in my brain.
O music through my clay,
When will you sound again?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

Election 2022: Win or Lose, Beowulf

Aladdin’s cave in Disney version

Friday

Since I’m expected to be non-partisan in the poems I submit each week to the Sewanee Mountain Messenger, for my election-related selection this week I chose two passages from Beowulf to capture opposing moods. I offer the first to voters despondent over Tuesday’s results, the second to those elated.

Since I freely share my political leanings on my blog here, I can report that the experience that Wiglaf feels after walking into the dragon hoard—this after he has helped Beowulf slay the beast—is what it felt like to survive the predicted Republican “red wave.” Despite facing a dragon threatening to burn down everything around us, we are still standing.

First, however, here’s the passage the describes how I would have felt had that red wave actually materialized. I would have related to Grendel after having had his arm torn off:

Then an extraordinary
wail arose, and bewildering fear
came over the Danes. Everyone felt it
who heard that cry as it echoed off the wall,
a God-cursed scream and strain of catastrophe,
the howl of the loser, the lament of the hell-serf
keening his wound.

After losing his battle with Beowulf, Grendel stumbles back to his underwater cave. That’s often where we want to be at such moments. For instance, it was where I wanted to be in 2016 when I learned that Donald Trump had been elected president.

Slaying the dragon, by contrast, involves pushing through depression and rediscovering hope. In Beowulf, dragons are associated with people within whom the life energies have ceased to flow. They hunker down in caves, or in cranky old age, refusing to recognize the riches all around them. Beowulf, like other figures in the poem associated with dragons (Heremod and the last veteran), is in danger of shutting down until the youthful Wiglaf helps him tap into the treasures within. This is symbolized by the liberation of the dragon’s treasure hoard:

[Wiglaf] went in his chain-mail
Under the rock-piled roof of the barrow,
Exulting in his triumph, and saw beyond the seat
A treasure-trove of astonishing richness,
Wall-hangings that were a wonder to behold,
Glittering gold spread across the ground,
The old dawn-scorching serpent’s den.

And he saw too a standard, entirely of gold,
Hanging high over the hoard,
A masterpiece of filigree; it glowed with light.
(trans. Seamus Heaney)

As Republican election deniers have experienced one defeat after another, I find myself glowing with light. Democracy appears to have been saved to fight another day.

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

GOP Red Wave Doesn’t Materialize

Turner, Goldau (1841)

Thursday

Given that we in the United States have been hearing about an impending “red wave” for months now—some pollsters were even predicting a tsunami or a level-two hurricane—last night’s mid-term elections have proved an immense relief to Democrats like myself. It appears that Christian nationalists, insurrection supporters, and big lie believers did not sweep all before them after all. At this point they are trailing in their attempts to win the Senate and have a fragile lead in House races.

In other words, much of what we experienced was “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” But rather than Shakespeare, I turn to a Longfellow to capture some of what happened. But first, here are a few more results from the election to set up the poem.

Quiet Kartie Hobb, who goes around assiduously doing governmental business, is currently edging out television personality Kari Lake, who goes around spouting fascist rhetoric. Pennsylvania Lt. Governor John Fetterman, with a record of helping the people in his community, has bested snake oil salesman Dr. Oz. Many of the 2020 election deniers endorsed by Trump were defeated by responsible politicians committed to making people’s day-to-day lives better. All of which is to say that Responsibility has been winning out over flame throwing.

Longfellow’s “The Brook and the Mountain” allegorically captures the encounter:

The brooklet came from the mountain,
As sang the bard of old,
Running with feet of silver
  Over the sands of gold! 

Far away in the briny ocean
  There rolled a turbulent wave,
Now singing along the sea-beach,
  Now howling along the cave. 

And the brooklet has found the billow,
  Though they flowed so far apart,
And has filled with its freshness and sweetness
  That turbulent, bitter heart! 

Sadly, I can’t imagine the GOP becoming any the less turbulent and bitter if the brooklet emerges triumphant. In fact, I still anticipate a few to deny that their opponents have won, despite getting more votes. Many continue to believe that the politics of hate triumph over freshness and sweetness.

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

Humorless Twitter Boss as Malvolio

Henry Andrews, William Pleater Davidge as Malvolio

Wednesday

As I was teaching Twelfth Night at the University of Ljubljana yesterday, the chance arose to make a Twitter reference. Billionaire Elon Musk,of course, has bought the social media platform for $44 billion and now appears intent on using it to strike back at critics.

After a number of these critics penned parodies of Musk, Musk decreed that all parodies should be labeled as such. The whole point of a parody, however, is for the reader to recognize the joke on his or her own. There’s a moment of disbelief (for a moment, it feels real), followed by the realization that it’s parody. Labeling it ruins the joke.

Which is to say, Musk is behaving like Malvolio.

Lady Olivia’s humorless steward takes special offense at Feste, her court jester. At one point, after Feste has twitted Olivia for excessively mourning her brother, the amused countess turns to Malvolio and asks, “What think you of this fool, Malvolio?–doth he not mend?” To which Malvolio sourly replies,

Yes, and shall do till the pangs of death shake him: infirmity, that decays the wise, doth ever make the better fool.

In other words, we become more foolish as we age towards death.

Striving for a witty put-down of Feste, however, is like Musk attempting a snappy rejoinder to his Twitter critics: it’s a back-and-forth he’s bound to lose. Feste replies,

God send you, sir, a speedy infirmity, for the better increasing your folly! Sir Toby will be sworn that I am no fox; but he will not pass his word for two pence that you are no fool.

Malvolio is left to flail around—” I marvel your ladyship takes delight in such a barren rascal”—leading to a reproof from her that could well be applied to Musk:

Oh, you are sick of self-love, Malvolio, and taste with a distempered appetite. To be generous, guiltless and of free disposition, is to take those things for bird-bolts that you deem cannon-bullets: there is no slander in an allowed fool, though he donothing but rail; nor no railing in a known discreet man, though he do nothing but reprove.

Yes, a Twitter parody by a decent humorist (“allowed fool”) is as harmless as a blunted arrow, as those who are “generous, guiltless, and of free disposition” know well. It so happens, however, that Musk is none of these. He is certainly not a “known discreet man,” which means that his complaining resembles railing rather than wise words.

In the course of the play, Malvolio’s self-love will make him prey to a nasty prank, which ends with him in a madhouse. At the end of the play, he storms off stage, vowing, “I’ll be revenged on the pack of you.”

One form of revenge open to Elon is taking Twitter down the tubes—although that would also mean setting his $44 billion investment on fire.

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

It’s Election Day so “CMON, COME OUT”

Jacob Lawrence, Shovel

Tuesday – American Election Day

African American poet June Jordan says all that needs to be said on this election day: “CMON/COME OUT.” More than Congress is up for grabs as, all over the country, election-denying Republicans are running for governor, secretary of state, and other positions of power. If significant numbers of them are elected, future elections will be in doubt. As GOP Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Tim Michels promised/ threatened last week, “Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I’m elected governor.”

What I love about Jordan’s pithy little poem is that the very tree at which the silent minorities have been called to meet “AIN’ EVEN BEEN PLANTED YET.” While Julia and I voted before we left for Slovenia, we felt discouraged, knowing that our votes would count for little in solidly red Tennessee. But I take heart from an African American poet who knows, better than we do, what it’s like to strive for justice and freedom when the deck is stacked against you. Like Emily Dickinson, she dwells in possibility.

Calling on All Silent Minorities
By June Jordan

HEY

C’MON
COME OUT

WHEREVER YOU ARE

WE NEED TO HAVE THIS MEETING
AT THIS TREE

AIN’ EVEN BEEN
PLANTED
YET

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed

Good Company, Rich Conversations

Menzies, Hawkins as Mr. Elliot and Anne

Monday

Our visit to Slovenia—my wife’s first in 10 years and mine in four—continues magical as we are having long and meaningful conversations with men and women who lived with us when exchange students at St. Mary’s College of Maryland. I’m also reconnecting with former colleagues at the University of Ljubljana. A Jane Austen passage has come to mind that captures our interactions.

The students attended St. Mary’s thanks to an exchange program that Julia and I set up following the death of our oldest son. Because he, and we, had had rich experiences thanks to Fulbright teaching fellowships to Slovenia in 1987-88 and again in 1994-95, we could think of no better way to honor his memory. The students lived and ate with us while attending classes at the college—we hosted around 20 of them over the years—and now we are seeing the fruits of the exchange.

While we weren’t able to see Justin grow into a full-fledged adult, we are witnessing Anamaria, Estera, Sanya, Urska, Milan, Ksenija, Jonathan and others step into the full powers, in fields as various as academia, translation, business, cinema, and teaching. It’s as though some of Justin’s future has been transferred to them.

The Austen conversation occurs after Anne Elliot watches her father, the insufferable prig Sir Walter, maneuver to get back into the good graces of Lady Dalrymple. Those around Anne, including Lady Russell and Mr Elliot, think nothing of it, with Lady Russell contending that family connections are “always worth preserving, good company always worth seeking.” Anne, however, is appalled at how they grovel:

Had Lady Dalrymple and her daughter even been very agreeable, she would still have been ashamed of the agitation they created, but they were nothing. There was no superiority of manner, accomplishment, or understanding. Lady Dalrymple had acquired the name of “a charming woman,” because she had a smile and a civil answer for everybody. Miss Carteret, with still less to say, was so plain and so awkward, that she would never have been tolerated in Camden Place but for her birth.

After Anne speaks her opinion to the slippery Mr. Elliot, she finds him agreeing with Lady Russell. Thereupon follows the conversation that came to my mind:

[He] agreed to their being nothing in themselves, but still maintained that, as a family connection, as good company, as those who would collect good company around them, they had their value. Anne smiled and said,

“My idea of good company, Mr Elliot, is the company of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation; that is what I call good company.”

“You are mistaken,” said he gently, “that is not good company; that is the best. Good company requires only birth, education, and manners, and with regard to education is not very nice. Birth and good manners are essential; but a little learning is by no means a dangerous thing in good company; on the contrary, it will do very well.

The former students we conversed with are “clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation.” In other words, they are proving to be the best company. Like Anne, we would have been disappointed had we encountered no more than birth, manners, and “a little learning.”

“A little learning,” incidentally, is an allusion to Alexander Pope’s Essay on Criticism. But while Mr. Elliot appears to signal his cleverness by citing the poet, he actually shows himself to be an example of what Pope is warning against. Here’s the passage:

A little learning is a dang’rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain…

Rather than drinking deeply in the sacred spring of the muses, Mr. Elliot flaunts his little learning to imply that he has substance–after which he goes on to indicate that he is interested only in birth and manners. In short, he cares nothing for the company that, like Anne, our former student and we value.

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

Now Let Us Praise Poor Naked Wretches

Bensell, King Lear

Spiritual Sunday – All Saints Sunday

Today being the first Sunday after All Saints Day, our church will be taping memorials on the church walls to remember those who have died. We are also likely to read that wonderful passage from Ecclesiasticus (a.k.a. the Book of Sirach) that provides the title for Agee and Evans’s famous book about Depression-era tenant farmers.

Early in their book, Agee and Evans cite a passage from King Lear, which serves as my literary tie-in. Before we examine it, let’s first look at the Ecclesiasticus passage that the authors are citing.

The passage begins, “Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers in their generations. The Lord apportioned to them great glory, his majesty from the beginning.” The “famous men” that Agee and Evans have in mind, however, are not those mentioned early in the passage—which is to say, those who “did bear rule in their kingdoms, men renowned for their power, giving counsel by their understanding, and declaring prophecies.” Rather, they are thinking of all those others who have been forgotten:

And some there be, which have no memorial; who are perished, as though they had never been; and are become as though they had never been born; and their children after them.

Even though these are “as though they had never been born,” however, the passage adds that “these were merciful men, whose righteousness hath not been forgotten.” And it assures us,

With their seed shall continually remain a good inheritance, and their children are within the covenant. Their seed standeth fast, and their children for their sakes. Their seed shall remain forever, and their glory shall not be blotted out. Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore.

Even though people die and are forgotten, God’s covenant lasts.

In their book with its never-to-be-forgotten photographs of the rural poor, Agee and Evans also include the passage where Lear follows the fool into shelter out of the rain. Unexpectedly, he expression compassion for the fool–“Come on, my boy: how dost, my boy? art cold?“–before delivering the following lines:

Poor naked wretches, whereso’er you are,
That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm,
How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides,
Your loop’d and window’d raggedness, defend you
From seasons such as these? O, I have ta’en
Too little care of this! Take physic, pomp;
Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,
That thou mayst shake the superflux to them,
And show the heavens more just.

The passage represents a key turning point for Lear. Up until this point, he has been a narcissist, focused only on himself. For the first time in his life, he starts thinking of “poor naked wretches…that bide the pelting of this pitiless storm.” If people like himself were to experience homelessness and hunger the way he himself is doing so now, he thinks, they might redistribute their wealth—“shake the superflux to them”—and thereby create a more just world. It’s an extraordinary moment.

To emphasize the redistribution theme, Agee and Evans pair the Lear passage with the closing lines of Marx and Engels’s Communist Manifesto:

Workers of the world, unite and fight. You have nothing to lose but your chains, and a world to win.

Much of the power of King Lear lies in his evolution from bad king to good man. In the beginning he fixates on power, in the end he finds love. Tragic though that ending is, he redeems his life.

Which is the point of the Ecclesiasticus passage as well.

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

Do Not Stand by My Grave and Weep

Louis Edward Fournier, The Funeral of Shelley

Friday

This past week in Slovenia has been a time for remembering the dead. Tuesday was the official Remembrance of the Dead day, a day when family visit the graveyards and clean the stones, but many had the entire week off.

As I talked to friends about the occasion, I thought of Mary Elizabeth’s Frye’s “Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep”:

Do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not there; I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow,
I am the diamond glints on snow,
I am the sun on ripened grain,
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning’s hush
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circled flight.
I am the soft stars that shine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry,
I am not there; I did not die.

The sentiments remind me of the inscription Julia and I put on our oldest son’s gravestone. It’s from Adonais, Percy Shelley’s elegy to John Keats:

He is made one with Nature: there is heard
His voice in all her music, from the moan
Of thunder, to the song of night’s sweet bird;
He is a presence to be felt and known
In darkness and in light, from herb and stone…

I think also of how Will and Lyra free the dead in Philip Pullman’s fantasy novel Amber Spyglass. I wish I had the book with me so I could share the ecstatic moment when the dead emerge from their dark sterile existence and, with cries of joy, merge with nature. The internet, however, gave me the passage explaining what will happen:

“This is what’ll happen,” she said, “and it’s true, perfectly true. When you go out of here, all the particles that make you up will loosen and float apart, just like your daemons did. If you’ve seen people dying, you know what that looks like. But your daemons en’t just nothing now; they’re part of everything. All the atoms that were them, they’ve gone into the air and the wind and the trees and the earth and all the living things. They’ll never vanish. They’re just part of everything. And that’s exactly what’ll happen to you, I swear to you, I promise on my honor. You’ll drift apart, it’s true, but you’ll be out in the open, part of everything alive again.”

As I recall the book, there are orthodox souls in the land of the dead who are so hung up on the idea of heaven as a fixed place that they choose to remain in the dark. It’s a version of Dante’s Inferno, where the close-minded find themselves trapped for eternity in those closed minds.

For the others, however, death is a new entry into existence.

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