Our Dysfunctional Family

1.

The white working class is in horrible decline.  The death rate for whites without a college education is increasing markedly; this against a background where the death rates of every other demographic group is decreasing.

What are the causes for the rise in death rates?  Not infections.  Not war.  Not cancer.  They are all rooted in dysfunctional behavior--drug addiction, liver failure, suicide. The reason why so many people are dying young can be summed up with one word: despair.

Economics has nothing to do with it.  They're dying because they're turning their backs to God.  They're dying because they're no longer monogamous.  They're dying because they prefer welfare to jobs.

I'm not making this up.  This is exactly what many conservatives believe.

A particularly egregious example of right-wing jeremiad against the working class is an article that appeared in the March 28, 2016 edition of The National Review, namely,"Chaos in the Family, Chaos in the State:  The White Working Class's Dysfunction" by Kevin D. Williamson.  Summary: the decline of the white working class is solely due to their immorality which is amply demonstrated by their hedonism, by their lack of religious faith, by their lack of commitment to marriage, by obsessive promiscuity and by their refusal to work.  All these atrocious habits are enabled by government handouts.  Obama might supply them with figurative needles and heroin, that is, welfare and disability checks, which is bad enough, but this isn't the root of the problem.  Members of the white-working class are dying because they've made the deliberate decision to shoot themselves up with bad habits.

Again, I'm not making this up.  Some quotes from the article: "They failed themselves; they have not been victimized by outside forces."  "The problem isn't that Americans cannot sustain families, but that they don't wish to." "The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles."  "The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die."  His message to those who still live in dystopias: rent a truck and haul your damn ass to wherever jobs are.

Don't founder in Flint; move to Madison. You see, I really wasn't making this up.

2.

I want to make it clear that I believe strongly in personal responsibility.  Some, perhaps even a good deal, of the problems in poor communities are caused by poor decisions made by poor people who live in them.  But certainly not all.  Society has a very powerful effect on us all.  The best thing, after condign and loving guidance from friends and family, that can happen to anyone is  developing a passion for something in life and pursuing it with every effort one can muster.  Second best is to have a job which might be far from perfect, yet pays the bills. Worst of all is to have time on one's hands while one's body and mind lead a meaningless life. To state, as Williamson has, that there have been no outside forces adversely affecting middle-class life is ridiculous. A New Deal-type work program would do much good.  To paraphrase Williamson, "The problem isn't that those in power cannot help the middle class, but that they don't want to."

The purpose of this essay is not to detail  the neglect of the poor and the undereducated, but to bring to the reader's attention a pernicious and prevalent attitude of so many that are better off, namely the denial of interconnection, the denial of the importance of   all citizens, without exception.   The economically deprived are dismissed as depraved; they are ignored and considered as "not us" and "the others." The rich socialize and live among the rich; if one is wealthy and doesn't think of the poor, it is as if they do not exist.  Am I my bother's keeper?  Many conservatives reply with  a resounding no.

If you think that members of the white working class are the only ones dismissed as "others,"I would like to quote the far-right Fox News pundit, Bill O'Reilly.  When Trump told him that he wanted to bring jobs to poor black communities as well, O'Reilly retorted: "How are you going to bring jobs to people who are unqualified?  Many of them are ill-educated and have tattoos on their foreheads!"

No comment.

Williamson is quite specific.  The belief that "we're all in this together" is absurd: "One of the worst errors in public life is the common one of mistaking the metaphor for the thing itself.  In reality--and reality is not optional--the president is not the national dad and government is neither paternal nor maternal.  The nation isn't your family.  Your family is your family."

Metaphors, Mr. Williamson, are metaphors; they are not to be taken literally.  They are figures of speech which provide either aesthetic pleasure or a greater understanding of our world; the best do both. This specific metaphor uses the strongest bond one has--the family--to help us come to an undeniable truth: everyone and everything is related to everyone and everything else and that this insight should determine how we interact and behave.

Why has it come to this?  There must be a balance between commitment to oneself and commitment to others for society to prosper.  There is a word for individualism disconnected from concern for others: narcissism.  It is as bad as (pseudo)concern for the collective disconnected from the rights of the individual: there are words for this as well, communism, fascism, dictatorship, tyranny. The latter systems of government have brought misery to millions; they have all failed miserably.  Democracy is indeed the best form of government; it too begins to fail, however, when all classes don't feel that they are integral parts of a whole.  Plutocracy is just as much a threat to democracy from the right as communism is from the left.  Communism, however, has been swept away and now is part of the dustbin of history; the threat to democracy from narcissistic plutocrats, however, is very real indeed.

Hillel, as always, is pertinent here.  "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"  (The importance of the individual.) "If I am only for myself, what am I?" (The importance of working toward liberty and justice for all, with the implication that the individual, without the realization of interconnection, is wasting his life.)

A friend has argued that exploitation of the working class is intrinsic to capitalism; trying to ease the burden of the poor and low-wage earners is mere "tinkering."  He paraphrases Reagan: capitalism is not part of the problem, capitalism is the problem.   The entire system needs to be replaced, and war is probably the only way to do it.

Such a sanguine attitude to what a twenty-first century world war would be fills me with horror.  One shudders to imagine something even worse than World War 11. A nuclear war is needed to solve our problems?  No, no, no. I do not believe  capitalism is the culprit; the creation of wealth is not a sin.  Narcissism, however, is.  The best capitalist democratic societies today--Denmark and Canada, for example--are arguably the best societies in the history of the human race.  O, do they ever have problems as well; a knowledge of human nature, however,  consigns the desire for perfection to the naive.  It is quite possible that a regulated--not too much, not too little--capitalist democracy is the best form of government possible, at least at the present time.  Ours is very far from the best government possible, and the distance between justice and status quo is widening to an alarming degree. The democracy of the United States is being undermined by narcissistic plutocrats; we need to restore a balance between individuality and justice before it is too late.

3.

The Stone Age ended concomitantly with the end of the last Ice Age, about twelve thousand years ago.  Once the period of hunter-gathering ended, civilization advanced rapidly.  However, it seems to be a general rule that progress almost always has a downside.  Once people settled in communities, individuals had the opportunity to devote themselves to particular tasks.  Pottery, poetry, religion and, eventually, philosophy and science; all beacons of light that emerged from the dark.  Along with these came priests, pharaohs, kings at the top and peons at the bottom. Along with the beacons of light came the shadows of injustice.  Human society became quite hierarchical, and has remained so, in various ways, ever since.

If you don't like any kind of hierarchy and advocate for a thoroughly egalitarian society, you are living in a dreamworld; get your feet back on the ground.  The best thing we can do, given human nature and the nature of civilization, is to move-- significantly, why not?--toward a more just society.

How to move in that direction?  If  one demonizes either the rich or the poor, progress will be fitful at best.  An essential modus vivendi entails the conviction that all strata of society are interconnected.

India, with its caste system, is one of the most hierarchical systems on earth.  Using the caste system as providing a theoretical framework for a functional society certainly absolves me from the criticism that I would like to remove hierarchy altogether.  The following diagram depicts society as a human being, whose various parts (castes) are all essential if society is to move forward:

Traditionally, the brahmins are the thinkers, the kshatriyas are the rulers, the vaisyas are the merchants and the sudras are the laborers. The point I want to make is this: society cannot move forward without its feet!  No, Mr. Williamson, I'm not claiming that this metaphor is reality. The value of this metaphor is its illustration of the fact that we cannot move forward if any class is abused, ignored and deemed inessential.

Let us extend the metaphor: if we ignore our feet, treatable wounds can turn gangrenous.  Any hope for progress will thus be brought to a standstill.  We had better take care of our body politic as well as our bodies; the gross inequality that exists in America today will continue to slow us down, perhaps even cripple us, perhaps even kill us, if we don't.   What good is a head if the rest of the body is dead?

Rezension: AMON von Jennifer Teege mit Nikola Sellmair

AMON
Mein Grossvater hätte mich erschossen
von Jennifer Teege und Nikola Sellmair
Rowolt Taschenbuch Verlag
Hamburg, 2013
266 Seiten

Wie würdest du reagieren, wenn du, in einer grossen Bücherei, ein Buch von den Regalen nimmst, dessen Autor deine eigene Mutter ist?  Rein zufállig.  Du hattest ja keine Ahnung, dass deine Mutter, die längst aus deinem Leben verschwunden ist, etwas geschrieben hatte.  Mit Freude?  Mit Angst?  Aber dann kommt ein grosses Erschrecken: du entdeckst, dass ihr Vater—dein Grossvater—ein KZ in Polen geleitet hatte, wo viele Juden ermordet waren.  Er hat sogar einige selbst erschossen.  Ein Lustmörder.  Ein Sadist.  Das ist dein Blut.  Was könnte schrecklicher sein?

Das ist genau was Jennifer Teege passiert ist.  Ihr Buch, Amon: mein Grossvater hätte mich erschossen, erzählt eine Geschichte, die fast so störend wirkt, als der Moment Ödipus endlich erkennt, dass Iokaste seine Mutter ist.

Die Autorin erzählt uns über ihre Reise in die Hölle und zurück mit Talent, obwohl dem Leser klar wird, dass sie keine Schriftstellerin ist.  Ihren Beschreibungen fehlt an Anschaulichkeit; das dramatsche Element vermisst man auch. Sie berichtet; sie zeigt nicht. Fast keine Diologe kommen vor, selbst wenn Jennifer ihre Mutter nach vielen Jahren wiedersieht. Am Ende des Buches kennen wir Jennifer ziemlich gut; alle anderen Figuren bleiben schattenhaft. Dann und wann hilft ihr Nikola Sellmair, eine Journalistin, die Nebenbemerkungun hinzufügt. Aber, wie schon erwähnt, erzählt sie ihre Geschichte mit Talent; sie ist sehr lesenswert. Ein yiddisches Sprichwort ist hier angebracht: es iz gut, ibergekummne tsuris zu darstellen, (Es ist gut, überstandenes Leid darzustellen.)  Ihr Buch ist eine Erfüllung des Sprichworts.

Teege ist die Tochter einer weissen Deutschen und eines Vaters, der Emigrant aus Nigerien ist.  (Zwei Kainzeichen!)  Von ihrer Mutter verlassen, als einzige Schwarze in einem nordeutschen Kinderheim zu sein wäre doch schlimm genug.  Alle jungen Weissen waren längst adoptiert, bis sie mit zwei Jahren an die Reihe kam.  Jennifer ist aber offen und liebenswürdig.  Das erste Kainzeichen weicht: eine kultivierte, gutmütige, und ziemlich reiche bürgerliche Familie ist von ihrer Persönlichkeit bezaubert.  Sie wächst inmitten einer stabilen Familie auf; sie hat sogar zwei Brüder, die sie von Anfang an als ihre Schwester behandeln.

Dann, mit 38 Jahren, trifft sie die Vergangenheit wie ein giftiger Pfeil tief ins Herz. Ihr Grossvater, Amon Göth, war der unmenschlicher Bösewicht, der Ralph Fiennes im Film, “Schindlers Liste” verkörperte.  Göth war der Leiter des Plaszówer KZ-Lagers, in der Nähe von Krakau.  Vom Balkon seiner Villa erschoss er Menschen, als ob sie Tauben wären.  Er war verantwortlich für den Mord von Abertausenden.  Nach dem Krieg wurde er in Polen hingerichtet. 

Jennifers Mutter wurde kurz nach dem Ende des Krieges in Westdeutschland geboren.  Amon war die grosse Liebe von Jennifers Grossmutter, die den Unmenschen bis zum Ende ihrer Tage verteidigte. Das Leben ihrer Tochter war verwirkt.  Sie war vom Schicksal zu schwer betroffen, um ihre Tochter allein aufzuziehen. (Aber nicht ganz; sie holte ihr Studium nach, heiratete, hatte noch ein Kind, und schrieb jenes Buch, das Jennifer in der Bücherei fand: “Ich soll meinen Vater lieben, oder?”)

Als Jennifer sehr  jung war, sah sie oft ihre Grossmutter.  Sie, immer modisch angezogen und sorgfältig geschmückt, war sehr gut zu Jennifer, was für die Letztere äusserst wichtig war, weil sie sonst kein Familienleben genoss.  Wir lernen aber etwas Schreckliches über sie.  Tom Segev, damals ein junger Doktorand der Universität Boston, interviewte die Grossmutter für sein Buch, "Die Soldaten des Bösen.”  Im Buch "Amon" erscheint das Folgende:

Über die Opfer Amon Gõths sagte Ruth Irene Göth noch zu Tim Segev: “Das waren ja nicht wirkliche Menschen wie wir.  Sie waren so verdreckt.”       

                                                                                        S. 110

Dieser Satz traf mich ins Herz wie ein mit Gift geschmierter Dolch.  Denk ich an Deutschland in der Nacht… 

Jennifer, die sich jetzt als ein Kind der Täter betrachtet, studiert deren Lebensgeschichten.  Die meisten sind sehr düster.  Kennzeichnend für sie aber ist die Weltanschaung von Ferdinand von Shirach, dem Enkel des Reichsjugendführers Baldur von Schirach:

Die Schuld meines Grossvaters ist die Schuld meines Grossvaters.  Das Bundesgerichtshof sagt, Schuld sei das, was einem Menschen vorgeworfen werden könnte.

                                                                                                           S. 181      

Der Enkel des berücktigten Nazi ist Advokat und Schriftsteller, der für viele Bestsellers und Kurzgeschichtensammlungen  bekannt ist, die nicht nur im deutschen Sprachgebiet  populär sind. (Interessant: einer seiner Vorfahren war unter denen, die die amerikanische Declaration of Independence unterschrieben hatten.)  Jennifer hat diesen Weg eingeschlagen, nicht der Weg zum Abgrund, dem die Mutter nicht entkommen konnte.  Jennifer ruft die Mutter an, sie treffen sich in einem Restaurant.  Monika Göth redet nur über die Vergangenheit.  Am Ende des Gesprächs umarmeren sie sich kurz.  Keine Tränen.  

"Warum hast Du mich verlassen?" ist die Frage, die Jennifer lebenslang ihrer Mutter gestellt hat.  Ich finde es aber gut, dass die Mutter sie adoptieren liess.  Jennifer wuchs in einer gesunden Familie auf.  Sie ist eine kluge, selbstsichere Frau.  Sie ist glücklich verheiratet und hat zwei normale Söhne.  Sie wäre wohl nicht so erfolgreich, wenn sie bei einer deprimierten Mutter wohnte.  Die Vergangenheit, die eine schwere  Last für ein junges Mädchen wäre, ist viel leichter zu verabeiten, wenn sie einer mit 38 Jahren zuerst zur Kenntnis kommt.  Jennifer hatte schon längst eine gesunde Persönlichkeit, die nicht zulassen könnte, dass sie  unter dem Druck der Vergangenheit sänke.

Manchmal wähnt man, dass das Schicksalsrad ein Leitner hat.  Ehe sie etwas über Amon Göth erfuhr, studierte die junge Jennifer vier Jahre in Israel.  Sie spricht fliessend hebräisch und hat einige enge israelitische Freunde.  Jahre später bekennt sie ihnen ihre unschuldige Schuld. Die erschrockenen Freunde aber bleiben ihr treu.  Sie fahren gemeinsam mit einer Klasse von jungen Israelis zum KZ-Lager in Polen.  Sie legt Blumen vor die Gedenknisstätte.  Die Studenten sind nicht böse mit Jennifer.  Ein Mädchen sagt, dass sie endlich begreife, dass auf eine ganz anderer Art auch Jennifers Familie und Jennifer selbst gezeichnet sind.  Dass auch sie ein Trauma mit sich träge.  Sie glaube aber noch an das Gute in den Herzen aller Menschen.  ("Fast aller Menschen," glaube ich, kommt der Wahrheit näher.)

So endet die Geschichte einer intelligenten, ausgeglichenen schwarzen Deutsche.  Denk ich an Deutschland in der Nacht… Ist der Sonnenaufgang nah?


Anmerkungen

Mein besonderer Dank gilt Mary Upman vom Deutschen Literaturkreis in Baltimore.  Sie hat diese Rezension vorsichtig korrigiert and verbessert  Vielen Dank, Mary!

Weitere Artikel auf deutsch von Thomas Dorsett (Googeln Sie den Titel und dem Namen, Thomas Dorsett)

1.Jakob der Lügner, von Jurek Becker
2. Die Weisheit und das Alter
3. Ruhm von Daniel Kehlmann

4. Die letzte Welt von Christoph Ransmeyer

5. Die Herrlichkeit des Lebens von Michael Kumofmüller

6. Nacht ist der Tag von Peter Stamm

THE POETRY OF JOSÉ GARCIA VILLA

José Garcia Villa

Dovelgion

Collected Poems

Penguin Classics, 2008

260 pages

In September 2008, I received an e-mail from John Edwin Cowen, whom I never met or corresponded with, but knew to be José Garcia Villa’s literary trustee; he invited me to a celebration on the campus of New York University.  The event was in honor of the publication of the collected poems of Villa, published one hundred years after the poet’s birth in the Philippines in 1908.    Of course I attended.  

The celebration went well, but I must say that José deserved a much larger response.  Although he was terribly ignorant of classical music, he had an impeccable ear for the music of language and was a versifier sans pareil.  True, the subject matter, although on occasion strikingly profound and original,  sometimes wore thin, but as José wrote in an excellent Xocerism ( a collection of aphorisms contained in the book--Xoce is a transliteration of “José” from the Russian: “Form is to Substance what a wet T-shirt is to a fine body.” (Page 247--All page numbers in this article refer to those of the Penguin edition.)  This is a fine example of the sensuality, humor and seriousness typical of Villa’s work. You always got a splendid T-shirt with José, sometimes very fine bodies, too.  (Contrast this with a good deal of modern poetry, where all you get is a naked lump of misshapen clay without any artistic covering at all.)

The book makes a good case that José’s work should not be forgotten.  Poets and readers at the very least should be familiar with his best poems.  Poets should study his “Adaptations,” his versifications of prose, and his “Duo-Technique” poems, which provide horizontal tension at the same place in each verse.  One will have no doubt, after studying these, that not even Marianne Moore could versify better than Villa. 

He certainly had faults, too--who doesn’t?  He is interested in the reflections of the inner eye; the resultant poetry suffers often from being too abstract.  Even when trying to be, his poems are not always profound.  For instance, the “God” of his poems is often a thinly-veiled version of his father, with whom he had a terrible conflict.  Mannerisms sometimes got the best  of him--What are we to make of such lines as

                                                    …Rain. That

                                    Doth leave no stain…            

                                                            (page 15)

or

                       

                        Him have I chosen

                        To be berosen./

                                                        (page 56)

Poets should be remembered for the best work, however; and some of Villa’s poetry is quite memorable.  Some of the inclusions in the book, written after I lost contact with him in the 1970s, were new to me. They contain many gems. I was delighted, for instance,  to see signs of great maturity in the aphorisms he wrote at the end of his life. A striking example:

               God is without scientific proof.  Thank God!

                                                                               (page 244)

With great economy this renders absurd all forms of fundamentalism--the belief that God is a fact--The aphorism denigrates literalism of belief, however,  not in the name of atheism, as is common today--but in the name of--dare we say--true religion. (José had an advantage here, since religion is much closer to poetry than to prose.)  For moderns who understand the two facets of this aphorism, namely dismissing dogma while asserting faith--religion need not be an anachronism.

I must say, however, that José the man did not come across either during the celebration at NYU or in the otherwise fine introduction to the Penguin edition by a former student of his, Luis H. Francia. José was often wild, out of control.  What Toscanini said about the composer Richard Strauss could be applied to José: “To the composer Richard Strauss I take off my hat; to the man Richard Strauss, I put it on again.”  In my case, though, I take off my hat to the man, too.  Underneath, he was kind, good and generous.  But the conflict with his father; the loneliness of being an artist in a world where poetry counts as almost nothing; being a Filipino in a predominantly white environment; the difficulty of being homosexual during a very homophobic time--all of these factors took a terrible toll on him.  Yes, Lord, he was sometimes  difficult indeed. I choose not to provide examples.

     Although the man sometimes failed, the artist often succeeded.  Anyone with any interest in poetry should purchase this definitive book of his work and read it from cover to cover.  John Edwin Cowen is to be much commended.  After its appearance one can only say this: if José’s poetry falls into oblivion, it is our fault, not his. 

                                                                                                                                                                                           

     José Garcia Villa, 1908-1997, was my mentor in poetry from 1967 until 1972.  I have never met anyone like him.  Not only a fine poet, Villa was a superb teacher.  Personally, he could be generous as well as cruel; he was  witty; sad, ironic, joyous, and sometimes, frankly, strange.

     I first met Villa in the fall of 1967.  My brother advised me to take a course of Villa’s at The New School in New York, which I did.  I remember nervously reading over and over my introductory poem, as I rode the subway en route to our first encounter.  José was a ruthless critic, I had been warned.  To my utter delight, he praised my poem and predicted I would become a poet.  (I have been trying to fulfill that prediction ever since, with some success.)

    Villa was considered a major poet during the l940s and 1950s.  Edith Sitwell, who received a copy of his 1942 book “Have Come, Am Here,”(Viking Press), stated that the best poems of this volume were “amongst the most beautiful written in our time.”  Cummings, Eberhart, Van Doren and many others lavishly praised his work.  His innovations in poetry were both criticized and praised. Even before he was critically acclaimed in the West, he had made a firm name for himself in the Philippines.  He received many honors from his native country, including an honorary doctorate from the University of the Philippines;  the dictator Ferdinand Marcos declared him the National Poet of the Philippines in 1972.  For several years, he was the nominee of the Philippine government for a Nobel Prize.  But after his last major poem, “The Anchored Angel,” appeared in The Times Literary Supplement in 1954, Villa’s work began to fall into obscurity.  (His last major book, “Selected Poems and New,” appeared in 1958.) Villa gave up writing poetry around this time and turned his attention to teaching. He had a difficult personality, one that hardly endeared him to the poetry establishment.  (He told me that Oscar Williams, who did not include a poem by Villa in his famous anthology, perhaps out of spite, refused to be present at any gathering that included Villa. Lord knows what José said to him to have caused this antagonism.)  Poets who praised him did not necessarily receive compliments in return. (He told me that one evening at a literary gathering Allan Ginsberg bowed down before him, acknowledging Villa as the superior poet.  Villa offered him no praise in return, since he did not think much of Ginsberg’s writing.) 

    In addition to his acerbic tongue, other factors, as mentioned in Part l, contributed to the neglect of Villa’s poetry: an aesthete par excellence, he did not have a wide range of subject matter; he neglected the eye at the expense of the ear.  His ear for poetry, however, was extraordinary.  At the end of his career, he ceased to be innovative–He often told me, citing Cummings as an example, that older poets tend to repeat themselves, and should know when it’s time to quit. Styles change; what once appeared as verbal dazzlement began to look like mere rhetoric.  Another major factor in Villa’s increasing obscurity is that he did not do anything to promote his poetry once he stopped writing.  (“I’ll be rediscovered one day, though,” he predicted.)

     I do not contend that Villa is a major poet.  I do contend, however, that the best of his poems should not be forgotten.  I hope that the examples in the essay will convince readers of this fact, and encourage them to read Villa’s poetry.

     First, let us turn our attention briefly to his biography.  Villa was born in 1908 to a prominent Philippine family.  His father was the personal physician to a general 

during the revolution against Spain.  To his father’s dismay, Villa decided to become an artist.  His early poetry was deemed obscene and resulted in his dismissal from the university where he studied. He came to the United States in 1930 and lived there until his death.  His first book, a collection of short stories with Philippine themes, “Footnote to Youth,” was

championed by Sherwood Anderson.  Although he had gained some reputation as a painter and as a writer of prose, Villa soon became convinced that his true vocation was poetry.  With some trepidation, he sent some poems to Cummings; the latter was very favorably impressed.  Cummings later dedicated a poem to him, “Doveglion.”  Three major collections of poetry followed.

     His best poems might suffer from comparison to the best poems of Yeats, Frost, and Hopkins; they nevertheless provide considerable aesthetic delight.  (José always told us that the purpose of poetry is to delight.)                                

     Let us turn our attention to some examples.  Each of the three poems to be discussed I believe to be first-rate; each will be used to illustrate an important aspect of what, according to Villa, is important in poetry.

1. Music and Meaning

     Villa, a language poet, emphasized that musicality is most important; although music comes first, this does not mean that meaning isn’t significant.  In the best poems, they are fused. Our first example, which illustrates this point,  is a lyric from his first major book of poetry, “Have Come, Am Here..,” which appeared in 1942:

O the Eyes that will see me,

And the Mouth that will kiss me.

And the Rose I will stand on,

And the Hand that will turn me.

This will be in a Time of mirrors.

O the Tiger that will point me,

And the Light that will drown me.

And the Voice that will sing me,

And the God I will dethrone.

This is the Death I will stand on.

                                           (Page 5)

     The music of this poem is exquisite.  The gentle vowels and  the rolling, dignified anapests not only sound beautiful, but they perfectly reflect the meaning of the poem–a feat only the best poets can accomplish.        Notice the first three words of the poem: the two unaccented words are climaxed by the brightly voweled word “Eyes.” Even if we did not know what the word “eyes” meant, by the rhythm and the verbal qualities of the first three words we know that we have arrived at something important.  “Eyes” is a representation of the protagonist’s fulfillment, that is, seeing God face to face.  (Line 9 does not contradict this: Villa refers to “the God I will dethrone,” using the definite article, that is, referring to a specific, lesser God;

we presume that “the Eyes that will see” belong to the God that surpasses all wisdom and understanding.)    The vowels of the subsequent three lines are darker, and thus more subdued.  It’s as if the protagonist is not quite so sure that what he so ardently hopes for will become a reality.  This is another example of meaning being underscored by the sound of the words; this–quite unlike some modern poetry--is poetry, not prose. 

     The fifth line, standing alone with its strong rhythm, strikes one as a revelation.  There is no uncertainty about this line, coming as a prophecy from the God both without and within.  I interpret it in the Hindu sense: on that final day, self will no longer be selfish–it will be reflected in all things, it will be all things--peace at last, the inner and the outer finally being one.

     The next three lines provide the bright vowels of the words tiger, light, and voice.  Note  that the course of anapests is broken by the two-syllable word, Tiger.  These bright lines are not as sedate as lines 2-4; one reads them faster.  It’s as if the protagonist of the poem has become invigorated by the prophecy of line 5; the train leaving the valley of doubt has picked up steam.  The protagonist now has increasing certainty that he will arrive at his destination.  The quiet fervor of lines 2-4 might be construed as a desperate hope; the rhythms and textures of lines 6-9 exude confidence in the future.  Note that line 9 returns to a darker-voweled, more sedate rhythm.  The iambic “dethrone” coming after the heavily accented “God,”  paralleled by the heavily accented words denoting  God’s competition, that is, “I will,” which is, in comparison, muted.   This is a masterstroke.  To arrive where he wants to be, the protagonist, presumably, has had to struggle long and hard to dethrone the false God.  The achievement of his goal, projected with certainty to some date in the future, is stated as a simple fact–the struggle isn’t mentioned at all.  This is a striking example of poetic understatement.  It is the polar opposite to Shelley’s unfortunate line, “I fall upon the thorns of life! I bleed!”

2. Poetry Is Not Prose

     

     One of José’s main themes in the teaching–and practicing–of poetry, is that poetry is not prose.  This may appear obvious, but it bears repeating.  The purpose of prose is, basically, to tell a story; it deals mostly in the past tense.  Poetry, in contrast, must first of all delight us, as music does, with sound.  (José did not emphasize the importance of metaphor, but he readily appreciated a good one when he read it, although language always came first for him.)  Not that meaning wasn’t important, but it must not come at the expense of language.  If some one’s primary purpose is to say something, José informed us, it would be much better for one to write an essay. Although poetry can and should convey meaning, this is not its primary purpose; to state its purpose negatively: poetry–and that means every line--must never be dull.        The divisions between poetry and prose should be respected by both novelists and poets.  José often illustrated a point he was trying to make, such as this one, with the help of a New Yorker cartoon. I remember one cartoon that depicted long-haired individuals; the caption had something to do about gender confusion–this was in the late 1960s.  His point was just that society demands, by and large, that an individual be classified as belonging to one of two sexes; similarly, aesthetics demands, by and large, to keep intact the divisions between prose and poetry.  Thus, although José appreciated Joyce’s genius, he thought that the overly poetic diction of “Finnegans Wake” detracts from the novel on the other hand,  he believed that the overly prosaic diction of Ginsberg was a definite negative.  (Don’t think that José did not appreciate Whitman–he was a great admirer.  Villa said that Whitman’s greatness became apparent as a cumulative effect. Many of Whitman’s lines are strikingly beautiful; this, of course, could not be sustained in long works, but Whitman’s genius triumphs, despite the odds.)

     Villa’s emphasis on language was the driving force behind his teaching that the first line of the poem should be mined from an area much deeper than superficial layers of thought.  Let it come from your subconscious, but filter it through the alembics of rhythm and sound.  Don’t worry about the meaning at first.  Poetry is so very difficult, he told us, because one has not only to be a musician, one must convey a meaning poetically, the deeper the better. 

Profundity was the criterion by which José classified a poet as minor or major; for example, Whitman, Frost and Dickinson were by this classification  all major poets, while Cummings, Moore and Stevens were minor poets.  Poets nevertheless, though, due to their use of language.

      Sometimes the meaning of the first line, and what follows, might not be readily apparent at first, even to the author.  It might not be able to be put into a prose equivalent at all.  Never mind, Villa taught us, just develop the poem musically, while respecting the meaning. This illustrates one of the great differences between poetry and prose.  Prose knows or should know the direction it is heading–one would expect a novelist to think about the plot of the novel first, before setting down a word–while in poetry, each line should come as a surprise not only to the reader, but to the author during its composition as well.  One of the challenges is to develop  a meaning from an apparently meaningless but beautiful first line by judicious use of language and meaning in the rest of the poem.   A superb example of this technique follows.  I am sure he had no idea  where the poem was leading after the first line came to him.  There was always a little bit of Lewis Carroll in José Garcia Villa; here what seems to be nonsense at first is transformed, while delighting us line by line, into a poetic manifesto: poetry should take us beyond the everyday world of prose into wonder.

Bring the pigeons watermelons, Abelard.

The order has cool philosophic purity.

This is not largesse but Roman nobility.

Bring the peacocks oranges.

Turn the philosophy to sensuousness.

Pallas Athena is Greek thereby.

But if we bring the watermelons pigeons?

If we bring the oranges peacocks?

Is this very difficult?

This would be Greek nor Roman.

This would be purity without philosophy.

This would be artistry.

3. Poetry as Sculpture

     Many novices think they can write decent poetry because a) they have feelings, and b) they already know a language and don’t have to spend time leaning to play an instrument like a musician would.  Sancta Simplicitas!  We have already encountered several reasons why the writing of poetry is so difficult: one must avoid hackneyed speech; one must master language like a musician yet pay attention to the meaning of words.  To these difficulties, Villa added another: one must pay attention to not only how the poem looks on the page, but one has to

pay strict attention to how the poem reads, with special attention paid to line breaks.  Versification must never be chopped prose!  This is the sculpture element of poetry.

      José was a master versifier.  He would give us a weekly assignment, usually  a paragraph of interesting prose.  We would versify it, and, during the next session, would write our versions on the blackboard to be criticized by all, and, most of all, by José.  Some of us really learned a lot during these sessions.  José always had his version, which he revealed at the end; it was, of course, always very much superior to our versions.

    Toward the end of his career, Villa versified interesting brief examples of prose culled from his reading, forty-six examples of which appeared for the first time in his 1958 book, “Selected Poems and New,” (McDowell, Obolensky, New York).  Examples included versified Rilke letters, an excerpt from a New York Times editorial, letters and prose excerpts by Dylan Thomas, Coleridge, Thomas Wolfe, etc.  I am not sure if the category “found poem” existed before José’s efforts–he never claimed to have originated this genre.  Yet, from the viewpoint of versification, these virtuoso pieces are perhaps the finest example of found poems ever composed. 

     The Penguin edition contains fine examples of Villa’s final innovation, the so-called “Duo-Technique” which provides some lines with horizontal tension as opposed to the usual downward tension at the end of the line.  Some of these adaptations are very impressive.

Few of José’s original poems were versified in  a tour-de-force way, as in the “Found Poems“ and “Duo-Technique“ poems; this is a shame, since as a master of line breaks and indentations, he was the equal of Marianne Moore.  A notable exception to the usual unindented three or four-line verses that form the bulk of Villa’s poems, is the following one:

God said, “I made a man

Out of clay–

                            But so bright he, he spun

Himself to brightest Day

Till he was all shining gold,              

And oh,

                              He was lovely to behold!

But in his hands held he a bow

Aimed at me who created

Him.  And I said,

                             ‘Wouldst murder me

Who am thy Fountainhead!’

Then spoke he the man of gold:

‘I will not

   Murder thee!  I do but

Measure thee.  Hold

Thy peace.’ And this I did.

But I was curious

   Of this so regal head.

‘Give thy name!’–‘Sir! Genius.’” (page 31)

To give but one example of the hidden treasures of this poem, notice the different emphasis “Murder” and “Measure” receive according to the way they are versified.  If “Measure” appeared directly under “Murder” it would be dull.  Extending to the left gives it a different, lighter emphasis, in accord with the vowel texture and with the meaning.   Oh, no, the protagonist is saying, this isn’t murder, only measure.  We suspect, however,  that this “measuring” is nothing more than a cover-up of “murdering”–the protagonist, after all, is aiming a weapon at God.  This subterfuge is achieved, not only by means of the words, but by the way they are versified.  Note also should be made of the crisp ending, “Sir! Genius!”  It sums up with two words the challenge to God–is “Sir” meant respectfully or ironically?-- namely that the fire of genius will turn to ash many hitherto unquestioned notions about Him.  Another example of understatement–“genius” is not elaborated. It also illustrates another one of José’s points: the last line, just as important as the first, should refer back to the first line and sum up the whole poem.  (Who is the man made of clay who spun himself into a man of gold?   A Genius!)

      The content of the poem refers to one of José’s favorite themes: alternating devotion and iconoclasm with respect to God.  Judas is often depicted as a heroic genius in his poetry.  Villa told me once that his favorite philosopher was Nietzsche, whose philosophy is behind many of his poems.  It is a classic love-hate conflict. (I’m not sure what José’s inner state was when he wrote these poems, many of which show some religious devotion in addition to iconoclasm; when I knew him, however, José was overtly religious.)  A more sober assessment is that behind the genius-God antagonism in Villa’s poems is the terrible father-son conflict of Villa’s personal life.   He told me some examples of his father’s cruelty, which need not be repeated here.  On the other hand, José must have been a very difficult son, one completely unfit to fill the shoes his father had selected for him.   

4.  Innovation

     José believed that innovation in poetry is very important.  He considered the works of Owen, Dickinson, Cummings and Moore to be modern examples of technical prowess and innovation in poetry.  Villa was very proud of the original technical aspects of his work.  In addition to the versified found poems already mentioned, he is known for two technical novelties: the reverse rhyme and comma poetry.  It is best to let Villa speak for himself regarding his new concepts of versification. The first quote, regarding reverse rhyme, appeared as an afterward in “Have Come, Am Here”:

The author is pleased to introduce in this book a new method of rhyming,

a method which has never been used in the history of English poetry, or in any poetry...The principle involved is that of reversed consonance.  The last sounded consonants of the last syllable, or the last principal consonants of a word, are reversed for the corresponding rhyme.  Thus, a rhyme for near would be run; or rain, green, reign.  For light–tell, tall, tale, steal, etc.   (page 74)

José then alludes to numerous examples of this techniques in his poetry, such as the

beginning of the opening poem from “Have Come, Am Here:”: “It is what I never said,/ what I always sing–/It’s not found in days,/It’s what always begins...”        José goes on to say:

  

That this new method of rhyming can be used successfully, the author demonstrates in the poems he has mentioned.  In the author’s belief, this new rhyme method is subtler and stricter, and less obtrusive on the ear, than ordinary consonance. (page 74)

Certainly, superficially at least, this type of rhyming is easier, since many more words can usually be found to rhyme with a word using reverse consonance as opposed to traditional rhyming. Villa, however, used this technique by choosing a word that has passed through the strict alembics of his ear; he used the technique very impressively.  He certainly has a point when he states it is less obtrusive on the ear; during a first read, many readers, pleased by the beauty of the lines, may not even be consciously aware of this technique.  To my knowledge, this technique has not been adopted by other poets.

      The second innovation, the comma poems, was introduced in his 1949 book, “Volume Two”  (New Directions).  This time the author’s explanation comes at the beginning of the book:

The reader of the following poems may be perplexed and puzzled by my use of the comma: it is a new, special, and poetic use to which I have put it.  The commas appear in the poems functionally, and thus not for eccentricity; and they are there also poetically, that is to say not in their prose function. These poems were conceived with commas, as “comma poems,” in which commas are an integral and essential part of the medium..(page 78)

A typical example are the opening lines of the first poem of that book: “The,bright, Centipede,/begins,his,stampede!.” (page 79) Note: Villa didn’t want any space after the comma, a demand that was not followed when the poems were published, but respected in the Penguin edition.)

     José does use the comma as a virtuoso, sometimes to great effect, but the eye sometimes fatigues from all those commas.  In the best examples, the commas significantly increase the wonder of the poem; in the worst, this new use of commas seems rather too clever and precious. Although we can never apply to it José’s putdown of second rate innovation, “How cute, how clever, how crappy,”  this technique remains a curiosity with little heuristic drive.  (I read in a NY Times Book Review article, however, that the French were quite impressed with José’s innovations–who knows, there might be some French poet in a Paris attic using these techniques today.)

    Edith Sitwell, by the way, a great admirer of Villa’s poetry, thought that this new use of the comma was simply “bosh.”  This didn’t stop her from selecting  one of the comma poems for her anthology; the editor, however, insisted that the commas be deleted. José countered

that the commas must be included, along with  his explication of the new technique as well; the editor refused.  José refused to accede to his demands while Dame Edith watched tears well into his eyes.  His work never appeared in the anthology.

5. Conclusion

      Sometimes quirky–sometimes even ridiculous–sometimes quite profound, the poetry of Villa is at its best quite impressive.  It is remarkable for its music and for what Eberhart         

referred to as its “blaze of linguistic glories.”  Just as the best songs of Karl Löwe can be favorably compared to those of Schumann, José’s best poems are little

masterpieces and can happily survive comparison to the poetry of Cummings, Stevens, Thomas and others.   Upon reading the best of  them, one is tempted to agree with Sitwell that they were among the best written at the time.  His poems have their faults, to be sure.  José was a very inner person, his relation to the world and to others was hampered by psychological problems, and this shows in his poetry.  Perusing the poems in their entirety, the reader becomes increasingly aware that behind the “blaze of linguistic glories” is a rather disconnected human being; behind the niceties of language and rhythm is often a paucity of experience.  Nevertheless, the best poems demonstrate poetry at a very high level.  Perhaps we should leave the last word to Marianne Moore, as quoted from the back cover of “Selected Poems and New”:

He has instinct for design, and his somewhat curious conjunctions of subject

matter are ‘felt’ not forced nor insistent. He is aware of contemporary work

without being imitative.  What matters most of all, he is not a destroyer, his work is reverent... Invariably, the after-impression is one of confidence.

 I hope this article has convinced you of Villa’s impressive talent and has inspired you to read more of his poetry.  All those interested in poetry should have a copy of the fine centennial edition of Villa’s poetry. It is odd that a poet so many critics and poets hailed as a master should be so neglected today.  An accurate assessment undoubtedly  lies closer to extreme praise than to extreme neglect; his best poems should not be forgotten.  Speaking for myself, I can assure you that I shall never forget the man nor his poetry, ever.



This article first appeared in the 2008 edition of "Spring, the Journal of the E.E. Cummings Society."