| Yesterday I posted Hart Crane’s tribute to Emily Dickinson, but then I wrote more about the poet vs. the poem so today I’ll discuss the poem, shown at the right. Whaddaya think? I suppose I’d give him an “A” for effort, but lower marks for structure and accessibility/clarity. Structure-wise, he did pay homage to Dickinson’s style a bit. He employed fragmented syntax and enigmatic imagery, and he even made use of several dashes. However, he chose to pay tribute to such unconventional poetry – described as “a new species of art” by Arlo Bates in the Boston Courier in 1890 and as “a new language” by Lilian Whiting in the Boston Budget that same year – with a purely conventional format, the sonnet, and through the use of very stilted and conventional language which then clouds the clarity of his tribute. |  |
He did honor Dickinson’s dedication to her craft, and he recognized her "hunger" and the "labor" she put into her poetry, suggesting both her passion and the solitary nature of her work. However, the extreme conventionality of the language and the stiff, overformal images make the poem arduous to get through. I suspect that most modern readers will find it stodgy.
I do appreciate his nod to Dickinson’s works. For example, his use of the words “vain,” “labor,” “stillness,” and – or course – “Eternity.” But then he threw in his own Dickinson-esque terminology – or at least what seems to be his perception of Dickinson-esque word choice, like “momently,” “descried,” “reconcilement,” and “rubyless.” And then there are those obscure images of Ormus and Orphir. Am I off-base here? Are Ormus and Orphir more recognizable than I presume?
Well, to be fair, I checked on these terms just to see if I were being a bit too persnickety. Turns out that Dickinson never used the words “reconcilement” or “rubyless” in any of her poems, but she did use the word “momently” once (in “It knew no medicine”) and “descry” – or some form of the word – in six different poems. However, those words do not conjure a Dickinson poem or image so clearly as the ones I mentioned earlier.
Dickinson never referenced “Ormus” in any poem, but she did use the word “Orphir” (in “Brother of Orphir”), but as a person and not a place as used in Crane’s work.
Then, in addition to this turgid language and these rarefied images, what’s with that “O dead, sweet silencer” in line 6? Is that Dickinson? Annnnd…what does that mean?
I do like the positivity expressed in the next image (with its touch of alliteration), “When singing that Eternity possessed / And plundered momently in every breast,” but I had to laugh when I shared those lines with my wife and noted, “you don’t come across the word ‘momently’ very often.”
She said bluntly, “mo – men – tar – i – ly, that’s five syllables…mo – ment – ly, that’s three. That’s why he went with that one.”
I also like the next line, “Truly no flower yet withers in your hand” – with its nod to Dickinson’s love of nature and botany – and “The harvest you descried and understand / Needs more than wit to gather, love to bind.”
The final line, though, “Else tears heap all within one clay-cold hill,” is a bit too clumsy and abstruse for me (although I do love “all within one clay-cold hill”).
What is he getting at with the last three lines: “Some reconcilement of remotest mind — Leaves Ormus rubyless, and Ophir chill. Else tears heap all within one clay-cold hill?”
Any thoughts?
I do appreciate his nod to Dickinson’s works. For example, his use of the words “vain,” “labor,” “stillness,” and – or course – “Eternity.” But then he threw in his own Dickinson-esque terminology – or at least what seems to be his perception of Dickinson-esque word choice, like “momently,” “descried,” “reconcilement,” and “rubyless.” And then there are those obscure images of Ormus and Orphir. Am I off-base here? Are Ormus and Orphir more recognizable than I presume?
Well, to be fair, I checked on these terms just to see if I were being a bit too persnickety. Turns out that Dickinson never used the words “reconcilement” or “rubyless” in any of her poems, but she did use the word “momently” once (in “It knew no medicine”) and “descry” – or some form of the word – in six different poems. However, those words do not conjure a Dickinson poem or image so clearly as the ones I mentioned earlier.
Dickinson never referenced “Ormus” in any poem, but she did use the word “Orphir” (in “Brother of Orphir”), but as a person and not a place as used in Crane’s work.
Then, in addition to this turgid language and these rarefied images, what’s with that “O dead, sweet silencer” in line 6? Is that Dickinson? Annnnd…what does that mean?
I do like the positivity expressed in the next image (with its touch of alliteration), “When singing that Eternity possessed / And plundered momently in every breast,” but I had to laugh when I shared those lines with my wife and noted, “you don’t come across the word ‘momently’ very often.”
She said bluntly, “mo – men – tar – i – ly, that’s five syllables…mo – ment – ly, that’s three. That’s why he went with that one.”
I also like the next line, “Truly no flower yet withers in your hand” – with its nod to Dickinson’s love of nature and botany – and “The harvest you descried and understand / Needs more than wit to gather, love to bind.”
The final line, though, “Else tears heap all within one clay-cold hill,” is a bit too clumsy and abstruse for me (although I do love “all within one clay-cold hill”).
What is he getting at with the last three lines: “Some reconcilement of remotest mind — Leaves Ormus rubyless, and Ophir chill. Else tears heap all within one clay-cold hill?”
Any thoughts?
RSS Feed
