I eyed C. K. Williams "Wait" for about a week, sitting there on the local library's discard shelf, hoping maybe some C. K. Williams fan would like to have such a nice, fresh, I'm guessing from its appearance, unread copy in cloth. But nope, I finally paid my quarter and snatched it up, grimly determined to take on a contemporary American poet (sort of contemporary; Williams died in 2015).
***
Laziness abounds. This from "Peggy" (p. 17)
The name of the horse of my friend's friend,
a farmer's son whose place we'd pass
when we rode out that way I remember,
not his name, just his mare's -- Peggy --
a gleaming, well-built gray; surprising,
considering her one-stall plank shed.
I even recall where they lived,
Half-Acre Road -- it sounds like Frost,
and looked it: unpaved, silos and barns.
I went back not long ago;
it's built up, with rows on both sides
of bloated tract mansions
On lot was still empty,
so I stopped and went through and found
that behind the wall of garages and hydrants
the woods had stayed somehow intact,
and wild, wilder; the paths overgrown,
the derelict pond a sink of weeds.
And on and on it goes. The name Half-Acre Road might sound like Frost, but nothing else about this poem does. This is prose - inept prose - straggling down the page towards a rather predictable conclusion - the triumph of nature over the ugly works of man. By inept I mean: was the mare really "gleaming"? Should that be "glossy"? Was it a "shed" or should that be "stable"? Do I really know what a "bloated tract mansion" is? Not really - it's just a cool, slovenly way to indicate a McMansion. A "wall of garages and hydrants" is just inaccurate, the hydrants being little stubby things, and not enough of them to contribute much to a wall. Are ponds ever "derelict"? This implies it was inhabited by people at some point. This proselike inattention is arranged in line and stanza breaks that are meaningless, as far as I can tell - not that I'm the Sherlock Holmes of puzzling out line breaks, it still seems that something needs to be happening to justify them - especially since Williams is "known" for his long lines - poets such as Williams, who do not really have any single poem that made them famous, are "known" for something or another - a theme, a look, a long line, quasi-surrealism, and so on; Williams is "known" for his longer-than-usual line, which comes very close to being prose, since the act of typing and paper manufacturing pretty much puts everything in a "line" doesn't it?
Sometimes Williams exerts himself - and some of these exertions got published in the New Yorker - five poems in this collection originally appeared there. Here, in "Dust," Williams tries for something less galumphingly prosey than his usual mode (as seen in "Peggy"):
Face powder, gunpowder, talcum of anthrax,
shavings of steel, crematora ash, chips
of crumbling poetry paper -- all these in my lockbox,
and dust, tanks, tempests, temples of dust.
Saw-, silk-, chalk- dust and chaff,
the dust the drool of a bull swinging its head
as it dreams its death
slobs out on; dust even from that scoured,
scraped littoral of the Aegean,
troops streaming screaming across it
at those who that day, that age or forever
would be foe, worth of being dust for.
Last, hovering dust of the harvest, brief
as the half-instant hitch in the flight
of the hawk, as poplets of light
through the leaves of the bronzing maples... (p. 115)
There is a feeling of vague dread here - the usual Williams' ploy of current events here is given some ham-handed ironic treatment, that "talcum of anthrax" riffing off "face powder" in a creaky way, "face powder" being something not much used nowadays, but going on a date in 1955 when your young lady had to excuser herself to "powder her nose" seems to have stuck with Williams all these years. And the holocaust, probably, trotted out again for decorative reasons (what else then?). Just to keep in the game, Williams adds that bathetic "crumbling poetry paper" too - whatever that is, exactly - poetry paper is to toilet paper what this poem is to poop? A cheap shot, I know...
Williams, when he gets cooking, displays a real verbal heedlessness:
the dust the drool of a bull swinging its head
as it dreams its death
slobs out on
This astounded me for its inaccuracies: the bull is probably supposed to be actually dying (in the bull ring, I'm thinking I'm supposed to think - man's inhumanity to animals, you know) rather than "dreams its death" - but saying "dream" in a poem is such a dreamy poem-like thing to do. Even worse, I think he means "slobbers" rather than "slob out" - if this is supposed to be a new word or phrase being coined here, Williams only made it about halfway - and why bother? "Slobs out" makes the bull sound as if he has a messy apartment; slobber is a great word - one of the glories of the English language - and here the right word. Then there are those intrusive, pointless, "poplets of light" - this sounds poetic, to the easily-amused I guess, but poplet is another made-up word made up for no good reason. Poets can make up words, of course, but this one seems pretty unremarkable. There might be unintended consequences - when I Googled the word, the first hits where from the Urban Dictionary, where a poplet is:
"Another word for 4 flats. Used by people who barely gets any band in MUET but still tries to throw shades without thinking about their poor IQ knowledge."
Here's Wictionary (German):
"Poplet - Second-person plural subjunctive I of popeln." When I went to "popeln" I found "to pick one's nose." Take your pick (ha ha).
It's as if Williams is bored by his own typing, so he heedlessly juices things up with neologisms of the crudest sort. Yeah, even Homer nods, but Williams pretty much nods off all the time.
***
When American poets run out of plums and light glinting off ponds, they turn to politics. Here is one that indulges in political right-thinking and self-congratulation, using language and imagery that is neither exciting nor fresh. Note the uncharacteristic use of short lines, which seem to be about as random of a choice as Williams' long lines for which he is "known" - known I mean in that itsy-bitsy American poetry way:
RATS
AUGUST 2005
1
From beneath the bank
of the brook, in the first
searing days
of the drought, water
rats appeared,
two of them,
we'd never known
were even there.
Unlike city
rats skulking
in cellars or sliding
up from a sewer-
mouth -- I saw this,
it wasn't dusk --
thee, as blithe
as toy tanks,
sallied into the garden
to snitch the crusts
we'd set
out for the birds.
But still, who
knows in what filth
and fetor and rot
down in their dark
world they were
before? I shouted
and sent them hurtling back.
2
Now the brute
crucible of heat
has been upon us
for weeks,
just breathing is work,
and we're frightened.
The planet all
but afire, glaciers
dissolving, deserts
on the march,
hurricanes without end
and the president
and his energy-company
cronies still insist
global warming
isn't real. The rats
rove where they will
now; shining and fat,
they've appropriated
the whole lawn.
From this close,
they look just like their cousins
anywhere else,
devious, ruthless,
rapacious, and every
day I loathe
them more.
What a lazy, inert, self-satisfied production this is. Williams is just old-fashioned and clueless enough to still think it a good move to use another species as a stand in for "devious, ruthless" behavior, the "filth and fetor and rot" of their "dark world" - where, it should be said, many, many animals dwell. This approach wouldn't pass muster with the campus right-thinking brigades these days, but what I find objectionable is the easy-peasy use of rats as a stand in for, you know, devious and ruthless. What a yawn this is. But while we are at it, what is a water rat, exactly? I don't know - Wikipedia lists a bunch of possibilities - a European water vole (since the dust jacket tells us Williams lived part of the year in France) or a musk rat. Or maybe it is just the country rat version of New York's city rat? Whatever it is, I felt sorry for it, used as it is by Williams to show how concerned the poet is for the whole Global Catastrophe Shebang. Note the 2005 date - this is a post-Katrina poem, with the "hurricanes without end" - I distinctly recall being told that climate change would mean that from here on out, one or two Katrina-sized hurricanes would slam into the USA (I seem to recall the president telling us this). I'm not here to argue climate change, but I am here to say that if a poet feels compelled to address something of this nature - something politically fraught, something big, something specific - that said poet should try to do something beyond small-town newspaper editorial page self-satisfied grandstanding while employing some less-than-cute mammal as a kind of quadruped straw man (straw animal?). I mean, substitute "European water vole" for "rat" and re-read this poem.
***
Here's another one, "Fire." Note the title - most of the poems in this collection are one or two words - "Ponies" "Shrapnel" "Plums" "Frog" "Wood." There is nothing wrong with this, necessarily, but since this is supposedly poetry we are talking about here, we have to go on the assumption that here, words are very important, including both their presence and absence. What, then, does a one-word title indicate about a poem? For me, one-word titles open up the possibility of some real pretentiousness, one word, "Fire" for instance, here standing alone and therefore at least suggesting the elemental, the ideal, the last word (and first) on the subject. Now the poem that follows doesn't have to be taking this approach - I am just suggesting that the stand-alone title has that effect, at least on this reader. Sometimes such a title is meant ironically, or is just the poet being lazy. Here, I just don't know, but Williams' poems seem lazy to me - slack in diction, often sinking below the level of third-rate fiction prose.
Fire
An ax-shattered
bedroom window
the wall above
still smutted with
soot the wall
beneath still
soiled with
soak and down
on the black
of the pavement
a mattress its ticking
half eaten away
the end where
the head would
have been with
a nauseous bite
burnt away
and beside it
an all at once
meaningless heap
of soiled sodden
clothing one
shoe a jacket
once white
the vain matters
a life gathers
about it symbols
of having once
cried out to itself
who art thou?
then again who
wouldst thou be?
Compared to the others, this is one of my favorites of the collection - I actually flinched a little at "the end where / the head would / have been with" because house fires being so... Well, the poem should be telling us what house fires are - what they are, I mean emotionally, when you see the burnt out shell of a home as you drive by. This poem huffs and puffs and strains so hard to conclude things (resorting to biblical wouldsts and thous and arts). "Fire" leads us by the nose to its grim conclusions - the heap is "meaningless" and "vain meanings" and the mattress has a "nauseous bite" taken out of it. Speaking of the mattress, "ticking" is the striped fabric that used to cover mattresses - but not since, oh, about 1970 or so, I'm thinking - I could be wrong, but if I'm not, this is another example of Williams taking his experiences from old movies or detective novels, not the 21st century.
Sometimes Williams plays fast and loose with the senses. Not to belabor the mattress, but here is the passage that for a fleeting moment, gave me a hitch (I mean this as a compliment):
a mattress its ticking
half eaten away
the end where
the head would
have been with
a nauseous bite
burnt away
But that "nauseous bite / burnt away" strikes me as inept - was it a bite or was it burnt away? We already had "eaten away" earlier. Biting and burning are different things, and a poet is allowed to conflate these things to achieve purposes beyond the descriptive - but what is being achieved here? Sometimes Williams poems strike me as having been written by a very precocious sophomore in high school who is just starting to discover big and unusual words. There is nothing definitely wrong here, but again, we are talking about poetry and each word matters - written by, I should add, a veteran, award-winning poet who presumably knows his business.
***
So what is poetry for? we ask, plaintively. I mean if poetry can't be used to fight the good fight - climate change, presidents we don't like, war, poverty, racism - why bother with it? I don't know, but I do know that when poetry is employed to carry the burdens of our on-going societal and environmental catastrophes, the result rarely rises above another ranting blog, letter to the editor, or a Tweet. Just because some person generally recognized as a poet (check her CV!) is typing does not mean what comes out of the printer is a poem. And yet again and again, the keyboard clacks and, for now, handsomely-printed books (in cloth) like this one are published, presumably as a tax write-off. This one is from Farrar Straus Giroux and it is, at least, beautifully produced (I presume I cannot blame them for the cover art, which is a painting - an upclose view, I hope - by Jed Williams, that consists of muddy swatches that I dislike almost as much as I like the book it decorates. Jed is the son of C.K.; he should've written one called "Nepotism".
I first encountered C. K. Williams at a writers' conference almost thirty years ago when a poem of his from Tar was included in a packet of contemporary poems used for one of the classes. I was impressed, if only because I could understand what was going on (in that same class I was also introduced to Medbh McGuckian, who utterly baffled me). Tar, I was assured, is Williams' masterpiece, a book that may well have changed the course of American poetry. But poetasters tend to have shifting masterpieces - around the same time, "everybody" agreed W. S. Merwin's masterpiece was The Lice. Nowadays, neither Tar nor The Lice seem to have anybody in their corner - start with Wikipedia and start surfing the web from there (in Williams' 2015 obituaries, The Guardian gave Tar a glancing mention; The New York Times didn't mention it at all). But American poets measure out their lives in careers, not poems - universities taught at, NEA grants granted, Guggenheims secured. And 25 years later, for 25 cents from the public library's discard rack, you can buy the book in pristine, unread condition.