In the May 14, 2009 issue of The London Review of Books, Colm Tóibín writes that in the poems of Elizabeth Bishop, "Description was a desperate way of avoiding self-description; looking at the world was a way of looking out from the self." He goes on to say that "The fact that the world was there was both enough and far too little for Bishop. Its history or her own history were beside the point." Given that the lyric mode† has become the dominant mode of contemporary poetry (as opposed to epic or didactic or pastoral modes), and given that contemporary lyric is often conceived as "overheard" or confessional poetry, Tóibín's contention is an interesting one. When we overhear Bishop, we don't hear her talking about herself. She's talking about fish or armadillos or moose. For a reader steeped in the patent egoism (and occasional egotism) of contemporary lyric poets like Louise Glück, Frederick Seidel, John Ashberry, or Jorrie Graham, Elizabeth Bishop cuts an odd figure. There seems to be not very much Elizabeth Bishop in the poems of Elizabeth Bishop. Biographical critics, meet your ultimate foe.
Yet reading this collection, which includes all published poems, unpublished poems from her youth, and a series of translations, one sees that Tóibín is not altogether right. Bishop's description was not a desperate way of "avoiding self-description"; it was in fact her very method of self-description. In fish and armadillos and moose she saw human characteristics that dissolved the boundaries we are wont to erect between human and animal. Observe how in "The Fish," Bishop struggles to reject the animal as something fully other:
I admired his sullen face,
the mechanism of his jaw,
and then I saw
that from his lower lip
--if you could call it a lip--
grim, wet, and weaponlike,
hung five old pieces of fish-line,
or four and a wire leader
with the swivel still attached,
with all their five big hooks
grown firmly in his mouth.
...
Like medals with their ribbons
frayed and wavering,
a five-haired beard of wisdom
trailing from his aching jaw.
The narrator toggles between anthropomorphizing description ("his sullen face") and clinical, distant language ("the mechanism of his jaw"), correcting herself mid-stride ("if you could call it a lip," "or four and a wire leader"). This is a wonderful poem that transmutes the fish-out-of-water disorientation to the person who has caught the fish. She cannot make sense of it, categorize it, and when she tries, she wrestles with signs of noble struggle, even wisdom, and confirmations that it is a beast with eyes "shallower" and "yellowed" when compared with human eyes, eyes that don't "return my stare." It's wise and mundane, deep and shallow, all at once. In the final lines, the mystery of the fish overwhelms the narrator's sense of victory:
I stared and stared
and victory filled up
the little rented boat,
from the pool of bilge
where oil had spread a rainbow
around the rusted engine
to the bailer rusted orange,
the sun-cracked thwarts,
the oarlocks on their strings,
the gunnels--until everything
was rainbow, rainbow, rainbow!
And I let the fish go.
Surrendering the fish means surrendering her attempt to figure it out. Much of what I find stirring and delightful about Bishop's poetry is this surrendering posture, an angle of defeat that never fully lets on quite what it's up to. In more overt poems like "Questions of Travel," Bishop unabashedly poses a series of difficult questions that imply defeat, including the famous closing lines:
Continent, city, country, society:
the choice is never wide and never free.
And here, or there ... No. Should we have stayed at home,
wherever that may be?
It is in the struggle for understanding that Bishop finds the vitality of the self. This reminds me of Louise Glück's poetry, but Bishop's feels less like therapeutic self-expression, and it is the better for it. For Bishop locates the turmoil between what she thinks she knows and what she cannot or does not know not only in her own head but also in heads of seemingly the weakest or most ridiculous creatures. In doing so, she suggests an identification between herself and vulnerable animals like the armadillo or the sandpiper. This identification has a way of both expanding the range of her conundrums--they afflict even weak animals--and reducing their self-importance--if even a sandpiper can have the view that "The world is mist. And then the world is / minute and vast and clear," how special is it that we can, too?
"Sandpiper" closes
he is preoccupied,
looking for something, something, something.
Poor bird, he is obsessed!
The millions of grains are black, white, tan, and gray,
mixed with quartz grains, rose and amethyst.
This is Bishop, too. We find her looking for something, something, something, darting her head among the objects and mysteries of material life like a sandpiper flitting its head along the pebbled shore. Her collected poems prove that among the million grains she knows where the rose and amethyst lie.
†On the rise of the lyric mode in modern and contemporary poetry, see Michael Silk's important chapter "Lyric and Lyrics: Perspectives Ancient and Modern" in the Cambridge Companion to Greek Lyric, pp. 373ff. Silk ably demonstrates how privileging one mode of poetry, the lyric mode, reached such an extent that the mode itself is now synonymous with poetry.