| When last we met, dear reader, Robert Frost had disclosed three of his favorite poems by Dickinson. Then, in addition to identifying a trio of reviewers’ favorite verses from the first published edition of Dickinson’s poetry, Thomas Wentworth Higginson described one of his favorites as “most exquisite.” Finally, Mabel Loomis Todd gushed over one short work by the Belle of Amherst: “Oh how could Emily epitomize life so perfectly and with such bitter force! With hardly a shadow of form, this poem almost breaks my heart!” And Dickinson herself? Well, she was hanging by her fingertips high above a massive drop in the Rocky Mountains. Quite the cliff hanger, indeed! About which poem was it that Todd rhapsodized so madly? The answer, my friend, is coming up. I promise – I will get to it! First, though, I vowed yesterday that on this very day I would discuss the three poems esteemed by Frost for just a bit, so please stick with me (or – if you simply cannot wait – scroll to the bottom of this post to find out). |  |
Here are the three poems – favorites of Frost – which I shared yesterday:
POEM THE FIRST: In “This is the land the sunset washes,” take a look above from left (published in 1890) to right (published in 1998) at the elimination and later reinstatement of Dickinson’s dashes. Todd and Higginson “cleaned up” Dickinson’s punctuation (and spelling and grammar and rhymes, etc.) to make her poems more palatable for public consumption. Even Robert Frost, at times, grumbled that “she disdained stanzaic form, rhyme, and meter” (from George Monteiro’s book Robert Frost and the New England Renaissance). Evidently, horizontal swashes were thought to be too radical at the turn of the twentieth century; however, Dickinson's dashes indicate the measured pace she designed and desired for her works – so dash away, dash away, dash away all!
I will admit, Dickinson’s handwriting is difficult to decipher – especially when differentiating a dash from a cross stroke of a “T.” Take a look below at Dickinson’s manuscript of the poem. The two images, left and right, are the same; I just kept a “clean copy” on the left so you could view it without all the markings. On the right, the red circles indicate dashes, and all of them were eliminated by Todd and Higginson. The blue circles show cross strokes that are separated from their Ts. You’ll note, too, that Todd combined lines 5 and 6 to create an eight-line, two-stanza poem.
I will admit, Dickinson’s handwriting is difficult to decipher – especially when differentiating a dash from a cross stroke of a “T.” Take a look below at Dickinson’s manuscript of the poem. The two images, left and right, are the same; I just kept a “clean copy” on the left so you could view it without all the markings. On the right, the red circles indicate dashes, and all of them were eliminated by Todd and Higginson. The blue circles show cross strokes that are separated from their Ts. You’ll note, too, that Todd combined lines 5 and 6 to create an eight-line, two-stanza poem.
POEMS THE FIRST AND SECOND: Once again, look from left to right (1890 to 1998) for “This – is the land – the sunset washes”: Todd changed the final word of the poem, “orioles,” to “fairy sails” so that it would rhyme more perfectly with “opal bales” in line 6. This poem was also one of fourteen poems selected for publication in an article contributed by T. W. Higginson to the Christian Union, XLII (25 September 1890), and he changed “like Orioles” to “with airy sails.” I suppose those Victorians just couldn’t tolerate a fine and honorable slant rhyme.
With apologies to Emily Dickinson:
There’s a certain slant of rhyme
With her gnomic poem
That distresses, like the rift
Of using “who” for “whom”
Next, in “The Soul selects her own Society,” Todd published “Obtrude” in line 4 in place of the word “Present,” though I’m not sure why. Dickinson did list “Obtrude” as a possible alternate on one draft of the poem; however, in another draft – of just the first stanza – she did not include “obtrude” as a viable substitute. I wonder if Todd had both copies in her possession? (And by the way, Dickinson never used the word “obtrude” in any other poem.)
With apologies to Emily Dickinson:
There’s a certain slant of rhyme
With her gnomic poem
That distresses, like the rift
Of using “who” for “whom”
Next, in “The Soul selects her own Society,” Todd published “Obtrude” in line 4 in place of the word “Present,” though I’m not sure why. Dickinson did list “Obtrude” as a possible alternate on one draft of the poem; however, in another draft – of just the first stanza – she did not include “obtrude” as a viable substitute. I wonder if Todd had both copies in her possession? (And by the way, Dickinson never used the word “obtrude” in any other poem.)
 |  With apologies to Gelett Burgess: I rarely see the word “obtrude” But don’t care if I see it Though I suspect I’d come unglued If used in place of “present”! (OY! That was bad! My apologies to you!) |
Oh by the way -- did you notice the addition of the apostrophe in line 5 -- from plural "chariots" to singular possessive, "chariot's"?
POEM THE THIRD: Back to punctuation: Look at the change Todd and Higginson made to lines 1, 2, and 5 of “Alter! When the Hills do”: they used question marks after “alter,” “falter,” and “surfeit” in place of exclamation points; Dickinson’s manuscript, though, clearly shows exclamation points. Why do you think they did that? I think the change shifts the tone and meaning of the poem. With the question marks, it’s as if the speaker in the poem is questioning herself. With the exclamation points, it seems more that someone has demanded the speaker to “alter,” “falter,” and “surfeit” – and she responds defiantly to the absurd notions. What do you think?
Below is Dickinson's manuscript of the poem. The marks are difficult to see, so I enlarged them on the right.
POEM THE THIRD: Back to punctuation: Look at the change Todd and Higginson made to lines 1, 2, and 5 of “Alter! When the Hills do”: they used question marks after “alter,” “falter,” and “surfeit” in place of exclamation points; Dickinson’s manuscript, though, clearly shows exclamation points. Why do you think they did that? I think the change shifts the tone and meaning of the poem. With the question marks, it’s as if the speaker in the poem is questioning herself. With the exclamation points, it seems more that someone has demanded the speaker to “alter,” “falter,” and “surfeit” – and she responds defiantly to the absurd notions. What do you think?
Below is Dickinson's manuscript of the poem. The marks are difficult to see, so I enlarged them on the right.
Hmm...lets get this a try: Let's change a few poetic exclamation points to question marks to see what happens:
Still I Rise? by Maya Angelou
O Captain? My Captain? by Walt Whitman
Tyger? Tyger? Burning bright by William Blake
Oh, the Places You'll Go? by Doctor Suess
I'm Nobody? Who are you? by Emily Dickinson
Now, finally, I am ready to help us off that damn cliff I left us all hanging from at the conclusion of yesterday’s post: Of which poem did Mabel Loomis Todd say, “Oh how could Emily epitomize life so perfectly and with such bitter force! With hardly a shadow of form, this poem almost breaks my heart!”
That poem is…
A drum roll please…(click HERE for a drum roll)...
“The Heart asks Pleasure – first.” I have posted the poem below, and I will discuss it tomorrow.
Any initial comments or thoughts on this?
RSS Feed
