The Poet Laureate is not-a-lot-of-laughs, eh?

[Letter in reply to article: Telegraph.co.uk: "Carol Ann Duffy is the not-a-lot-of-laughs Poet Laureate"
By Judith Woods. Published 7 December 2009. Note: Several minor corrections of the original have been made to the following letter.

The Poet Laureate is not-a-lot-of-laughs, eh?

It has been said over again in myriad ways that modern men and women must entertain and be entertained while not falling off the carpet they are riding on. When poets forget how far above the ground they are flying, they tend also to forget to hold onto the fringes of the carpet, and the ride may be a wild ride, indeed.

My copy of the Folio Anthology of Poetry (introduced by Carol Ann Duffy) recently arrived at my home in the U.S.A. In Duffy's introduction she writes "No matter how long ago it was written, good poetry is forever giving anew to the good reader and, indeed, forever receiving anew from the reader whose warm hand and breath and gaze is upon the page." This is as well said as anything I can think of pertaining to the art of poetry, but unfortunately, as poets, we often forget why we write, thus losing the reader's "warm hand and breath and gaze." Duffy, perhaps, sees reasons for "reproachful sentiments" and believes what to her is duty is also expedient, and for which there is a great deal more to be said. As the great Anglo-American poet Eliot (T.S.) asked, rightfully: "It is an advantage to mankind in general to live in a beautiful world...But for the poet is it so important? We mean all sorts of things, I know, by Beauty. But the essential advantage for a poet is not, to have a beautiful world with which to deal: it is to be able to see beneath both beauty and ugliness; to see the boredom, and the horror, and the glory."

When poets become too disenchanted with the world they reveal that their winged words are really made of lead. They shouldn't be flying on carpets for they become not only a danger to themselves but for everybody else as well. Poets should not be too engrossed in the affairs of the world for that is a charge that poets cannot afford, and once the scale is tipped against them there may be no turning back. The world we live on is no Paradise. The poet who forgets in their heart, in spite of all, that it is not a bad sort of place, and fails to accept its shortcomings, will not fit readily into the scheme of things and eventually will fail.

Our society, without thinking, tends to give poets too much incentive for greatness too soon by piling on awards, honorariums and riches for which they are not ready. Starting out well is not enough, as the poet ages he or she must be grateful for all that is granted to them. And, however others in the world may have started out, the world needs poets who can rise above the dourness of the modern world and get beyond waiting for Godot. The reader shall not be satisfied with anything less.

Modern poets need immediately to cease expending their energies on endless ingenuity which is forever being betrayed by cynicism. They need to focus their energies on why a planet that is not quite round and spins dizzily through space at breakneck speed is still a rather pleasant place to live. A poet who cannot accept the shortcomings and limitations of humanity cannot "see beneath both the beauty and the ugliness" and come to any meaningful conclusions. My Christmas wish for Carol Ann Duffy is that she may expel the weariness that the world carries in its heart, and take up her task with more dignity and hope on an uncompromising planet.

Dom Giovanni
Irish Italian poet

December 8, 2009

Where Should I Begin Reading About World War I?

A question came up during a group discussion about where to begin reading for a better understanding of the First World War. The questioner wanted information on "something with a great story," historical fiction preferred, avoiding exhaustive historical accounts of the war and individual battles, in order to better understand what a grandfather must have gone through during the Battle of Verdun. Drawing from my own book shelves and movie collections I have made a short review of some World War I literature in general, not all of which specifically pertains to Verdun but are considered classic literary accounts of the First World War from the viewpoints of actual participants.

Literature about the First World War (1914-1918), is plentiful and varied, but because of the time that has elapsed since the end of the war to the present, much has been forgotten by the general public about events that took place. Many of our grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and yes, even many of our grandmothers and great-grandmothers were participants to varying degrees. But what about them? Historical fiction is as good as anything to begin an inquiry.

My reply to the questioner (updated and expanded slightly):

A book on the First World War (called the "Great War") that belongs on your bookshelf, as others have also suggested, is Eric Maria Remarque's classic All Quiet on the Western Front (1929). This novel is to World War I literature what Stephen Crane's The Red Badge of Courage became to the American Civil War, indisputably the best war novel of the period. All Quiet on the Western Front has been described as "The book that shocked a nation," resulting in denunciation of the author, exile, and public burnings of the book. This is the story of professional patriotism in the German military gone awry, of the brutal realities of trench warfare and disillusionment among alienated soldiers in the words of German soldier Paul Baumer. Following the success of this book Remarque wrote The Road Back which appeared in 1931. Remarque later wrote Arch of Triumph (1945), a story of romance in decadent Paris just prior to World War II, which became his most popular story after All Quiet on the Western Front. Since its first publication in Germany All Quiet on the Western Front has never gone out of print, appeared in many languages. and can be had cheaply in paperback form to more costly leather bound editions. All three books were filmed.

For short stories about World War I, John William Thomason, Jr. published a superb collection titled Fix Bayonets (1926), they recount exploits of the United States Marine Corps during the war as well as in China, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Thomason had a long career in the Marines and authored and illustrated collections of short stories, magazine articles and other books until his death in 1944. He was awarded the Navy Cross while serving as the executive officer of the 49th Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment in WWI. Fixed Bayonets was an immediate bestseller upon publication and is still in print. Thomason's short stories are vivid and realistic personal recollections of the Marines fighting with the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I with his own highly praised illustrations.

English poet, novelist, critic and classical scholar Robert Graves' autobiography Goodbye to All That (1929 and 1957) is one of the highly acclaimed memoirs of fighting in the trenches with the British Army during the World War I. Graves revised the book in 1957 and removed many of the more significant events and figures of the 1929 version. Goodbye to All That still stands as a classic work on personal experiences during the war, including the traumatic incompetence of the Battle of Loos.

German writer Arnold Zweig's Sergeant Grischa series, The Case of Sergeant Grischa (1927, and filmed in 1930 and 1968), Education Before Verdun (1935), and The Crowning of the King (1937) have become well-received novels of World War I as well. With publication of The Case of Sergeant Grischa Zweig became an international literary figure. Three Soldiers (1921) written by John Dos Passos, was the only American book that could approach the naturalism of Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front. In this novel Dos Passos recounts his experiences with an ambulance unit in France during the war. Humphrey Cobb, born in Italy of American parents fought with the Canadian Army in World War I. His magnificent novel Paths of Glory (1935) is another good novel born out of the war and made into an excellent movie (1957) of the same name by Stanley Kubrik, starring Kirk Douglas and Adolphe Menjou. But nothing can surpass Lewis Milestone's movie adaptation of All Quiet on the Western Front (1930 B&W film) starring Lew Ayres and Louis Wolheim, although a very good film of this novel was made for CBS Television in 1979 (Color) starring Richard Thomas, Ernest Borgnine, Donald Pleasance, Patricia Neal, Dominic Jephcott, plus a host of other good actors.

The reader interested in knowing more about the First World War through literature will find it helpful to begin with these books and the several mentioned motion pictures. I don't think that one could find a better start. I am reluctant to call these novels and movies "anti-war" as is commonly done, a term that has become in my mind an overused cliche'. To think that the underlying theme of most of these novels is anti-war is naive. All wars have exhumed disenchantment and stupidity of varying degrees and sometimes, often really, an author's intentions are misinterpreted. Actions of a particular war in a particular time and place may be viewed in a literary setting that seems to speak of being against war in general, which of course, is a noble endeavor, but many of these same novelists had not written their last words by the time the next "great war" was to begin.

Dom Giovanni

December 6, 2009

Letter to Gabriella, On the American Left, So-called

Dear Gabriella,

I am not bothered at all by telling you what I believe is true. Most people, and I include myself, believe that they can understand what is true more clearly than others, especially those others with with whom they most often disagree. I doubt that many of them actually see as clearly as they think they do. They rarely, at this late date, arrive at mutual satisfying conclusions with each other
over even the most trivial differences. I think that they argue themselves out of arriving at satisfying conclusions, because to agree with the "other" is beyond the pale. So much for "seeing" clearly!

If we do not first respect what truth is or may be, and I doubt that many of us start out naturally wanting to know such high thoughts without some forceful changes of mind, then we cannot understand what it will take to make being truthful a naturally occurring habit? There are simply no easy answers here, at least in the initial stages when dealing with our own selves and motives.

If this is true, that it is not easy, many people then simply do not have anything in common with it (truth). More than a few people are just as sincere in being untruthful as others are trying to be the opposite. The whole idea of truthfulness can be made into a game, and if we are not willing to conquer our natural unwillingness to be truthful with ourselves and between each other, or find out where to begin, the game will conquer us. We must not find only a right starting point but the right starting point and there can only be one. Being sincere in our beliefs and thoughts about what is truthful is of no help. Truth is not a commodity on the exchange market.

Personally, I really do not care very much about political ideologies, for most of them are built upon false assumptions, basing their livelihoods on something that is not true. False assumption is common and it effects all of us in some way. For instance, if someone trying to prove that all early Native Americans were magnanimous individuals by using the story of Pocahontas saving the life of John Smith as proof, he or she would certainly fall into this fallacy, since this is only one instance of a Native American being kind to a captive, where many other historical acts concerning their treatment of captives have proved otherwise. I use this analogy not because I think Native Americans need to be faulted for their past, rather because there are many people who stick on points of the past and refuse to be confronted by their own errors of the present. Political ideologies prove nothing just as the past proves nothing other than that the ideology must be obeyed at all costs. The slave drivers are those at the top wielding the whip of fear.

Not only can we not cannot argue from false assumptions we cannot develop theories that we think are possible by shrewd guesses. Probable causes do not give us the answers to past conditions. When later referring to our guesses as facts, and establishing the possibilities of our theories as facts, we fall into the pitfall--arguing from a false assumption. Political ideologies, more often than not, work from ambiguous evidence and erroneous statements of fact and whoever errs from these does so at their peril. Somebody somewhere will make that fact plain, for it is a too great a thing to watch someone walk away from the built up lying that political ideologies are made of. It is intolerable.

What do I think of the American left? Perhaps it is not wise to answer such a question. It may even be harmful to me to answer such a question and prove nothing, because of the false analogies and assumptions accepted by a prejudiced public. For this prejudiced public evidence and reason have no sway. But to be brief I will try, Gabriella.

The American left, so-called, is only about crime and punishment, excusing their own crimes and trying and punishing everyone else for their shortcomings. In this, if not through use of the law or social stigmas, those who consider themselves the left, leftists, progressives or whatever in God's name they currently call themselves, gladly use every form of public humility they can imagine such is their puritanical nature. American leftists, as I understand them, are consumed by wrong principles and self-absorption. The essentials of good persuasion do not exist in their lunatic madhouse of ideologies, they are only assumed. Proper argumentation, clearness, and skill have ceased to exist and been replaced by contentiousness in the leftist bag of tricks. If not in all of them, then in all that matter.

This is not to say that other ideologies do not in some way share many of the same shortcomings, which is not the point. I have little to say at this time about others who may be equally obstinate and prejudiced. Every person and every party has to come to their own understanding of what they are and what they might become. The question is what do I think about the American left? That is what I actually think.

We cannot drive people from their opinions, they go back to them as a dog does to its vomit, not even knowing why. People who place themselves on the political left often say that they are making America and the world safe for democracy, but what a laugh that is. They use ridicule as a weapon, and a weapon is an instrument of destruction, not a very useful tool for building a democracy. They preach forms of peace but deny it by their weapons of choice. So then are they lying? Are they not people of peace? Emphatically, yes! They are lying and they are not people of peace. They prove over and over again that they want forms of peace but only on their own terms. The world beyond our borders has the same problem with the political left that we have, there is no answer outside of our borders.

I am sure that the ideologically left-of-center have some well-defined objections to my point of view and I am willing to give my respectful attention, but absurdity I will not hear. I say this because I know that in many of their points of view they are more than willing to say that the debate is over. Imperious pride and power impoverishes the left. They have nothing of value that I want. Knowledge of the world, scientific hypothesis, literary acumen, nothing that the left may boast of interests me, other than to make me question whether they are out to impoverish those who disagree with them and to make them obedient to their point of view?

We must not be unsympathetic towards the conflicts within the enormous panorama of human life unfolding before our eyes. The American left only serves to create ever-coarsening political propaganda and self-deception. I have no great feelings of satisfaction knowing that they leave a vivid distaste in the minds of well-wishers to the development of humanity. People around the world are at a deadlock, many of them not knowing which way to turn for answers, not knowing whom to trust with their income, property and their lives. Having little understanding of the treacherous problems involved in the political climates of the day, people are not truly informed, but are led by the arbitrary principles of power or to fend for themselves.

The left, through corrupt and willing uses of laws have served this nation and the world badly. Make no mistake, it is dangerous to cross over to where there are no paths of glory. If we must live we should do so with decency and, at least, a semblance of order. I see nothing of this in the lives of the left, always much spoken of but not verified. For all of their talk of building bridges among humanity, I see nothing except the tearing down of bridges that exist. Our lives are crossed, there's and ours. We live at a time when honor and loyalty to true ideals are trod upon by dwarves in everything but name only. The spirit of truthfulness has seemed to vanish from the world.

However the many and varied people of the left look at themselves, they cannot hide the fact that they are not good at faking. Political hypocrisy is especially offensive, on an equal footing with religious hypocrisy, for politics is a religion to most left-leaning men and women. I don't think that what I say about them is out of context with the way in which they speak and act. They tap into a populist anger which they themselves spread and build upon. The best of them, the faces of their leadership, however they are found, fake civility while hypocritically calling for civility. They disguise their own sexism while decrying it in others. Subtly, they practice the most vile sort of extremism while pointing it out in you and I. They plant jokes in their public gardens of evil but cannot laugh when the seeds of laughter are blown back in their faces. Of course, they use crude and offensive rhetoric to discredit those whom they despise yet characterize themselves as public saints. It's all pig crap and they know it, Gabriella, and very hard to defend.

It is a Judas that will sell anyone out for political gain. From the highest magistrates to the lowest membership of the left a jingling is heard emanating from their pockets as they walk, thinking it is sweet music they hear. They are so full of themselves that they are nauseous. Winking and excusing themselves between each other abounds but only builds the impregnability of their vanity. Unless they come up with something better, this is the impression I am stuck with. Failing to do right things in a right way or manner is impregnated on their calling cards. It is easy to censure and throw stones, and very difficult to dislike what deserves it without despising, I know.

I have tried to make allowances for my reasoning, Gabriella, and I conclude: the left cannot be trusted because those who make up the left will not trust anyone outside of their own pathetic circle of influence. The people of the left are not happy people. It is fitting to treat them justly, although, they are much to be pitied.


Yours sincerely,

Giovanni

Niente di nuovo sotto il sole

December 5, 2009

You will note that I have made some changes and corrections,
I think for the better. This is what I like best about electronic
letter writing.