S. says my poetry is dark. That may be true; well, at least some of it could be called dark. Perhaps most. Why is that? Some of the poetry I read is dark, but plenty isn't. And the poems that flit through my mind at random points throughout the day tend not to be dark at all - like Millay's Afternoon on a Hill: "I will be the gladdest thing/Under the sun! I will touch a hundred flowers/And not pick one." Also Plath's Poppies in October: "A gift, a love gift/Utterly unasked for/By a sky."
I think it's hard to write about happiness, about happy moments and good things, and to successfully capture their richness and nuance without resorting to tired phrases and expected formulations. It's as if writers share Tolstoy's notion that "Every happy family is the same, but unhappy families are all different." Same with Hardy's notions of war and peace: "war makes rattling good history," but peace is "poor reading."
It is amazing how we simplify goodness and happiness. Evil always has an author, a cause and effect. We analyze it for tortured childhoods, chemical imbalances, cruel vicissitudes of fate. Good deeds, heroes, they seem to emerge pristine, like Athena from Zeus's head. Do we think "good" is just about strength of character? Do we think it's the default setting, something that requires no explanation, no deep thought?
Evolutionary biologists think about it. They shake their heads over things like altruism and self-sacrifice. Social scientists largely ignore it. Novelists seem to be wary of it. Readers and viewers are bored by it. Ours is a truly disenchanted world. Not the best of all possible worlds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Laura,
What great musings you have. I came by to see what kind of mind was behind the poetry and which I discover is altogether interesting.
Science has always regarded man as a physical being, chemicals in a shaker mixed for the correct cocktail. If we look to the spirit through the ages and cultures, through the window of eastern and even pre-and early Christian thought, we see another focus. One about evolution to higher states of awareness.
You present the idea to consider whether goodness is boring, evil more fascinating. One can look at our modern culture and see the ideologies disseminated through popular culture, with emphasis on fast wealth, and fashionable cutthroats. It takes in my opinion a strong personal base of ethics and integrity (without judgment) but with a willingness to act when necessary against those things that lesson the common good.
In India I understand that a person of bad moral character cannot be a success. Why? Because the people will not allow it. They have a sort of group consciousness or justice factor that impinges and doesn't throw coins at the feet of darkness. Well you know, that's waxing poetic and all, but what I mean is, goodness is something in our Western culture that has been equated at times with weakness or even subawareness. When it is really, just the opposite. At the high levels from everything I have read and experienced, perception is wide, not narrow. There is clarity of concept. Simplicity, is a sophisticated art.
I feel happiness is not a condition. Not some state to attain. It is a living thing, an interest in life and pursuing those things that make one's life meaningful. Can a person write about those perceptions? And isn't part of the duty of art to elevate the culture, to bring them up and inspire them to more possibilities?
I look at the poetry of Mary Oliver. Her success is based on the fact that she touches people in a way that brings them up toward the ecstatic. This is the gift of Rumi and others.
Poetry touches all levels of emotion--at it's highest reaches it can be a catalyst to change lives.
Hi E,
Thanks for stopping by! It's so nice to have a real comment. I can't even get my oldest friends to comment when I threaten to post their Great Aunt So-and-So's secret applesauce cookie recipe. Oh, well.
You make some excellent points. I think you're right, there's an unfortunate equation of goodness with weakness is our culture - perhaps linked to market capitalism and competition? Maybe even deeper-seated than that. If you dissect the language of peace versus war, for example, you find that war terms imply agency, action, energy, power, will, while peace terms imply limpness, lack of arousal, sedate, etc. Of course, it's a whole different ballgame if you read literature on Gandhi and the whole nonviolent revolution in pre-independence India. Peace can be pretty edgy, complex, and is always a matter of mindful labor, not default setting (in my humble opinion).
I love the way you describe happiness as a living thing. I am going to think about that. And you have inspired me to check out Mary Oliver's work - a poet I am not familiar with.
Thanks so much for commenting!
See you on the Boards!
Post a Comment