I doubt there’s anyone who would pair poets Seamus Heaney and John Ashbery together. One seems earthy, fairly straightforward, full of traditional poetic fireworks, the other a clown in French fashion. But after reading this collection I’ve come to the conclusion they are two of a kind. For lack of having any compelling metaphysics they resort to coy strategies, in the case of Ashbery, or a kind of embarrassing New Age philosophy, in the case of Heaney. They are two symptoms of the confused, decentered nature of contemporary poetry.
Ashbery’s niche is having nothing to say but saying it in an interesting way. Heaney has plenty to say, and that’s a problem. The quotable bits are consolations, and lack the punch of genuine, intellectual insight. They get tacked onto his lovely music (such as “I remember little treble Timber-notes their smart heels struck from planks”), but spoken not from any perceivable center of gravity. Ashbery has no center of gravity by choice (at some level you have to respect a man who has made a career of “I have no idea about existence either”); with Heaney he gives the impression he has one, though I don’t see it, and for that reason he is a very frustrating poet to read.
The results are often awkward. One poem actually ends, “Shield your eyes, look up and face the music.” Elsewhere, didacticism works hand-in-hand with dead language; for instance, the way he uses “soul-free” here: “Bright puddle where the soul-free cloud-life roams.” That is too philosophy-specific for what was initially felt as perception-specific. So the clouds are reflected in a puddle, where, as a boy, he might have looked up above/below with sacred wonder? The haiku poets capture this kind of sublimity beautifully without resorting to a rhetoric-rich phrase like “soul-free”, one that for me, at least, ruins the mood.
The following bit was amazing… until he coughs up the ball at the end.
Lines
Hard and thin and sinuous represent
The flowing river. Down between the lines
Little antic fish are all go. Nothing else.
And yet in that utter visibility
The stone’s alive with what’s invisible:
Waterweed, stirred sand-grains hurrying off,
The shadowy, unshadowed stream itself.
All afternoon, heat wavered on the steps
And the air we stood up to our eyes in wavered
Like the zig-zag hieroglyph for life itself.
“The stone’s alive with what’s invisible” is a fantastic image for what he’s doing here: it is not philosophy anymore but pure description of the life we cannot witness in a rock. It too is on the move. But then, “like the zig-zag hieroglyph for life itself.” Ugh, no, stop it, spare us the cheap Egyptian philosophy please! What does it add that isn’t already beautifully said? There is a lot of that in Heaney where he senses something deep but lacks the language for it, and yet he’ll insist on describing it in half measures anyway (for what purpose, for filling up the space with unknowingness?). One poem actually has this: “Ultimate fathomableness, ultimate stony up-againstness” – awful.
If that’s the best a poet can do “with what’s invisible”, it makes me wonder. To be generous, if he really doesn’t know what he’s seeing, can’t hate on the man for that: it makes him human. But not a very great poet. If in fact he does know what he’s seeing but uses this gunk instead of sacred language (after all, he is saying this deep feeling he feels is beyond our comprehension), there’s something terribly cynical about his poetry. By all accounts, Heaney was a lovely man. I doubt he was being cynical about human potential which poetry represents best. If he genuinely saw the world whole like Shakespeare did it wouldn’t have been possible for him to write with such flabby inexactness. That “stony up-againstness” is truly horrific. As much as Wallace Stevens annoys me, at least he let those vagues be. Ted Hughes I’m finding is almost never vague like that. If he felt the sublime, he’d be sure and find a language for it, just like Emily Dickinson did (a poet Hughes admired). Heaney however, like Ashbery, gives the sense he would rather do anything but try.