Like leaves you’ve flown

The face that was familiar is no more
Yet with my mind I conjure up his eyes
His last warm smile, his wink,oh my sweet Lord
As I whispered  psalms he made his flight

The face that was familiar  now has gone
I see it inadvertently by  need
I shall  never  seek another one
With eyes and lips and speech that I might heed.

The face that was familiar  comes in dreams
Yet when I waken he is not in place
And so with grief my body hunches, squeezed
To keep the heart from  ravages unsafe

O face familiar,now like leaves you’ve flown
And I am left alone in homeless home

Kitchen fire

A plaster figure
Stands for my identity
Virtuosity

The door swings like rope
I am loosened from myself
Gape like a wide mouth

The kettle looks dead
Where is the kitchen fire
Where  are all of you?

I keep alive by thought
What day is it,I ask him
But he is absent

I put the bags outside
Let’s pretend we are here now
Will someone collect me?

 

Sylvia Plath:romantic?

http://journals.sfu.ca/thirdspace/index.php/journal/article/view/gordon/141

Extractphoto0189

“Raymond Williams observes, in his book Culture and Society: 1780-1950, that between the end of the eighteenth century and the early years of the nineteenth, some significant shifts in the meaning of words occurred. One of the important words that underwent this shift was ‘art’ and with it, the conception of the artist changed dramatically. Williams notes that “Art came to stand for a special kind of truth, ‘imaginative truth’, and artist for a special kind of person” (15). Furthermore, the idea of the genius changed from “meaning ‘a characteristic disposition,’” to “mean ‘exalted ability’, and a distinction was made between it and talent” (Williams 15). So, a Romantic conception involved not only a new perspective on art, but also on the person and the abilities that created the art. The conception of the Romantic Artist developed into one in which the Artist “is by nature indifferent to the crude worldliness and materialism of politics and social affairs; he is devoted, rather, to the more substantial spheres of natural beauty and personal feeling” (Williams 48). While Williams goes on to explain that this view is a simplification of the interests and social engagement of the Romantic poets, elements of this view persist. It is also important to note Williams’s gendering of the Artist as male. The gender bias is not only a reflection of the conventions of the time in which his book was written, but also reveals some of the presuppositions underlying the Romantic tradition.

E. Young, in his 1759 work Conjectures on Original Composition, reveals another underlying concept: “An original may be said to be of a vegetable nature; it rises spontaneously from the vital root of genius; it grows, it is not made; Imitations are often a sort of manufacture, wrought up by those mechanicsart and labour, out of pre-existent materials not their own” (qtd. in Williams 54). The idea of the original privileges the creativity and ‘liberty’ of work that breaks new ground and is spontaneous invention over work which is the result of effort and imitation. Rather than record the mundane, “the Artist’s business is to ‘read the open secret of the universe’” (Williams 56). The Artist has access to something universal and can transcend the ordinary through inspiration.

One potential reason for the use of the Romantic tropes of the Artist in work on Sylvia Plath is the many similarities between the lives the later Romantic poets led – lives of passion, pain, fame, ending in early death – and Plath’s experiences. The poets help to create their personal fame through their poetry, which was so personally revealing. The later Romantic poets – specifically Byron, Shelley and Keats – bear striking similarities to Plath. Byron was “made famous by his despair” and all three “die out of England” (McGann 110) as expatriates, like Plath who died away from America. The “Romantic poets like Keats appear to suffer in and through their work” (McGann 136) and the same could be said of Plath. Al Strangeways states that “Plath’s connection to Romantic tradition is […] usually treated incidentally” and that this is inadequate because many of her “central conflicts […] such as her struggles with individualism […] and her interest in the extremes and intensities of the unconscious, are rooted in Romantic concerns and influenced by [a] Romantic version of conflict” (40). The trope of the suffering, tortured artist is frequent in Plath criticism, though less prevalent in Rose and Stevenson’s works. Byron’s death is also “normally thought of in relation to his marriage separation, but that domestic event merely culminated his desperate Years of Fame” (McGann 111). The observation applies equally well to Plath, a female addition to the tradition typically restricted to males, but this important idea of gender and inclusion in the canon will be returned to later in the paper.

A crucial concept for the discussion of Plath and her work is that of the ‘genius.’ Christine Battersby notes that

[b]y the end of the eighteenth century, ‘genius’ had acquired Romantic grandeur: it had been transformed from a kind of talent into a superior type of being who walked a ‘sublime’ path between ‘sanity’ and ‘madness’, between the ‘monstrous’ and the ‘superhuman’ The creative success that could be ascribed to ‘mere’ talent was opposed to that bound up with the personality of the Romantic ‘genius.’ (103)

Poems for peace

img_20181015_2246203042https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69592/poems-for-peace

 

“Yet we Americans live in the most powerful country in the world, whose adaptably postmodern empire is marked by what William James calls Pure War, a state in which the real war is the constant preparation for war. Though our poetry has ably represented the traumatic and unmaking operations of war—from the rage of Achilles on to our present day—it has also often unwittingly glorified and perpetuated a culture of war. We have yet to give adequate attention to how our poetry also contains the seeds of other ways of dealing with conflict, oppression, and injustice, and how it may advance our thinking into what a future without war might look like.

How to imagine peace, how to make peace? In our conversations on the Peace Shelf, three general subcategories emerged, though these were full of overlap and contradiction: Sorrows, Resistance, and Alternative Visions. It’s simple enough: we need to witness and chronicle the horrors of war, we need to resist and find models of resistance, and we need to imagine and build another world. Even if modern poetry has been marked by a resistance to the glorification of war, vividly shown by the World War I soldier poets and many others, the important work of poetic dissent has been, too often, via negativa—resistance to the dominant narrative, rather than offering another way.

Even Denise Levertov—one of the self-consciously anti-war poets on any Peace Shelf—found herself at a loss for words at a panel in the 1980s, when Virginia Satir called upon Levertov and other poets to “present to the world images of peace, not only of war; everyone needed to be able to imagine peace if we were going to achieve it.” In her response, “Poetry and Peace: Some Broader Dimensions” (1989), Levertov argues that “peace as a positive condition of society, not merely as an interim between wars, is something so unknown that it casts no images on the mind’s screen.” But she does proceed further: “if a poetry of peace is ever to be written, there must first be this stage we are just entering—the poetry of preparation for peace, a poetry of protest, of lament, of praise for the living earth; a poetry that demands justice, renounces violence, reveres mystery.” That Levertov lays out succinctly what we ourselves, the Peace Shelf collective, took some weeks to arrive at, illuminates the challenge of the peace movement and of the literature that engages it; our conversations, our living history and past, are scattered, marginal, unfunded, and all too easily forgotten.

The following poems, dating from the 20th century onward—which appear in the anthology Come Together: Imagine Peace—provide a foretaste of the larger feast, which could begin with the Sumerian priestess Enheduanna’s laments against war, with Sappho’s erotic lyrics, or with Archilochus’s anti-heroic epigrams. Yet this feast isn’t mere sweetness and light. “Peace” is no mere cloud-bound dream, but a dynamic of living amid conflict, oppression, and hatred without either resigning ourselves to violence or seizing into our own violent response; peace poems vividly and demonstrably articulate and embody such a way. At their best, peace poems, as John Milton did in “Aereopagitica,” argue against “a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary.” If, in Milton’s words, “that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary,” then peace poetry must also interrogate the easy pieties of the peace movement and its own ideological blind spots. And indeed, Michael True’s exploration of nonviolent literature confirms that “although writings in [the nonviolent] tradition resemble conventional proclamations recommending peace reform, their tone and attitude tend to be provocative, even disputatious, rather than conciliatory.””