"For, the experience of each new age requires a new confession, and the world seems always waiting for its poet."
***
It will be necessary to keep the sentiment but broaden the reference. That the world seems always waiting
seems incontestable, the feeling of waiting is everywhere—it is, I
think, what makes us ever more deeply enslaved to our devices: we are
glued to our screens of all sizes not for amusement or business, but
because we think something is going to be announced. We can’t bear to
miss it. But that something is not poetry, unless we give poetry an
apocalyptic possibility. We are on the run from the anxious vibration of
our living, caused in part by the sense that things are more connected
than ever and that it’s the whole world that is somehow pressing in on
us, “obsessing our private lives,” as Auden wrote, though the nature of
those private lives has changed a great deal since that writing. It
could almost be argued that we no longer have private lives, and that
that lack, and the porousness that it implies, is the cause of our
unease, is what underlies that waiting. We are waiting for something
that will feel like a solution when it arrives; we are waiting for the
oppression of “what’s next?” to be lifted. We are, in a deeper sense,
waiting for our poet. But we are not waiting for the poem so much as the
permission to certify ourselves, to inhabit the world on terms we
understand, to be free of the feeling that everything is being decided
elsewhere. The poet, then, is the emblem of self-sufficiency, and the
poem, could we only find our way to it and understand it, is his proof.
The poem of our age, the new confession, would find a way to shape the
ambient energies and the anxiety of that interconnectedness into an
expression that felt contained, that gathered the edgy intuitions that
pass through us constantly and made them feel like understandings. Not
closed off or insistent understandings, but clarifications, ways of
abiding with the terrifying glut of signals. Moving that agitated flurry
into language is no small task. It might even be impossible, given that
the nature of most of these signals is pre- or post-verbal. Emerson’s
assertion becomes a question, the question: can anyone, poet or
artist or mere lay mortal, create a confession—an expression, a
synthesis—that would alleviate the waiting world? Or have we moved once
and for all beyond the pale of synthesis—with only partial versions
possible? Another way of asking whether our circumstance is now beyond
the reach of vision. Beyond language.How does the poet, the serious poet, navigate what has become the inescapable porousness, the basic destruction of the boundary of the private? Is the full and authentic lyric poem possible, or is it condemned to being a nostalgic gesture—with part of its impact derived from that fact?
No comments:
Post a Comment