Linda's Literary Home

Tag: literature

  • W. H. Auden’s “The Unknown Citizen”

    Image:  W. H. Auden - https://www.famousauthors.org/w-h-auden - Famous Authors
    Image:  W. H. Auden – Famous Authors

    W. H. Auden’s “The Unknown Citizen”

    W. H. Auden’s politically influenced poem, “The Unknown Citizen,” portrays a character whose life has been stifled by “the State,” yet, who does not recognize his subjugation—making him a perfect citizen.  In many respects, Auden’s speaker is foreshadowing the politics  of 21st century America.

    Introduction with Text of “The Unknown Citizen”

    Poet W.H. Auden relocated from England to the United States in 1939.  He experienced the stifling affects [1]of the New Deal legislation of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration.   

    The creeping socialistic policies were beginning to transform the once free nation into a ghetto of socialism. It has been calculated that those policies prolonged the Great Depression by as much as seven [2] years.

    Once a country where the citizen was free to develop his talents and interests, the socialist policies of the FDR administration were beginning to stifle that character, placing the individual into a metaphoric, bureaucratic wall.  

    Auden’s dissatisfaction with this socialist trend plays out masterfully in his poem, “The Unknown Citizen.” The poem’s subtitle establishes a “citizen” without a name, who is thus characterless and without status as an individual. 

    The “citizen” has merely been designated by a vague string of letters and numbers which, however, are not without significance for the reader: “JS/07 M 378” likely alludes to the initials of the widely common name, “John Smith,” the “M” likely refers to “male,” while the numbers, station the man in the bureaucratic brick wall of similarity and conformity.

    With bitter irony, this characterless individual is not an individual in the meaningful and humane sense of the word.  That the state would erect a “marble monument” to such a brick-in-the-wall is risible.  

    Yet the designation—”unknown citizen”—is reminiscent of the term applied to those with high honor: “the unknown soldier,” whose remains cannot be identified but are granted honor for service to the country.

    While honoring an unknown military serviceman, who lost his life defending his country has always been a high purpose for any country, no state would erect any kind of monument to the faceless, characterless individuals who make up the designated selection called “unknown citizen” as described in this highly symbolic and ironic poem.

    The poem plays out in groups of rime with similar content, as it displays in eight movements. 

    The Unknown Citizen

    (To JS/07 M 378
    This Marble Monument
    Is Erected by the State
    )

    He was found by the Bureau of Statistics to be
    One against whom there was no official complaint,
    And all the reports on his conduct agree
    That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a saint,
    For in everything he did he served the Greater Community.
    Except for the War till the day he retired
    He worked in a factory and never got fired,
    But satisfied his employers, Fudge Motors Inc.
    Yet he wasn’t a scab or odd in his views,
    For his Union reports that he paid his dues,
    (Our report on his Union shows it was sound)
    And our Social Psychology workers found
    That he was popular with his mates and liked a drink.
    The Press are convinced that he bought a paper every day
    And that his reactions to advertisements were normal in every way.
    Policies taken out in his name prove that he was fully insured,
    And his Health-card shows he was once in a hospital but left it cured.
    Both Producers Research and High-Grade Living declare
    He was fully sensible to the advantages of the Installment Plan
    And had everything necessary to the Modern Man,
    A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire.
    Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
    That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
    When there was peace, he was for peace: when there was war, he went.
    He was married and added five children to the population,
    Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his generation.
    And our teachers report that he never interfered with their education.
    Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:
    Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.

    Auden reading

    Commentary on “The Unknown Citizen”

    W. H. Auden’s widely anthologized classic poem portrays a pathetic character whose life has been stifled by “the State,” representing a form of government which seeks to subjugate the citizenry.  

    Auden employs irony to protest the state-owned life that goes against the basic American principle that the purpose of government is to protect “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for its citizens.  

    Auden’s wry description of his target reveals that this “unknown citizen” has had his independent ability to think and feel benumbed by the systemic, statist control under which he resides.

    First Movement:  A Bureaucrat Speaks 

    He was found by the Bureau of Statistics to be
    One against whom there was no official complaint,
    And all the reports on his conduct agree
    That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a saint,
    For in everything he did he served the Greater Community.

    The speaker appears to be a bureaucrat who has found it important enough to file this report regarding the unknown individual, henceforth called “the unknown citizen.”

    The speaker begins reporting that by a government agency no issues of resistance were ever detected by this “unknown citizen.” This unknown individual seemed to have functioned in a bureaucratically perfect manner throughout his life which resulted in his life “serv[ing] the Greater Community.”  

    The speaker offers a comic exaggeration of the citizen’s status by calling him a “saint”—but only in a “modern sense” of that “old-fashioned word,” indicating that any mystical or religious meaning be sucked out of that term.   While a true saint remains a unique individual in his sainthood, this “saint” functions only for the state, not for his own unique relationship with the Divine.

    Because the description of the citizen in this poem can be detected in the current political atmosphere of the USA, W. H. Auden has demonstrated a high level of prescience as his speaker reports on this state-obliging, willingly over-taxed citizen [3].  

    Such a citizen fits well the political ethos [4] of Manchurian Candidate Biden’s definition of a patriotic citizen [5], who, concurs with his former boss, Barack Obama, who insisted, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” [6].

    The requirement for a controlling socialist state begins with citizens remaining willing pawns in the hands of government authority.  Like sheep or lemmings, they follow and never question and that makes the statist overlord rich and satisfied with that citizenry.

    Second Movement:   An Unquestioning Joiner

    Except for the War till the day he retired
    He worked in a factory and never got fired,
    But satisfied his employers, Fudge Motors Inc.
    Yet he wasn’t a scab or odd in his views,
    For his Union reports that he paid his dues,
    (Our report on his Union shows it was sound)
    And our Social Psychology workers found
    That he was popular with his mates and liked a drink.

    This unknown citizen for his entire life labored in the factory or business concern called “Fudge Motor Inc.”  He took time off as his patriotic duty called, such as serving in the military.  He unquestioningly joined the “union” and paid his dues dutifully.

    This unknown citizen enjoyed friends and a drink occasionally.  Such a detail demonstrates the thorough intrusion of the state into the lives of individuals.  The state has employed “Social Psychology workers” to determine the state-appropriate behavior of every aspect of every citizen’s life. 

    Auden’s prescience has foreshadowed the 21st century Democratic Party (USA) [7], which attempts to control every aspect of American lives today, from what people can eat and drink to how they use energy.

    Third Movement:  Controlling the Life of Everyman

    The Press are convinced that he bought a paper every day
    And that his reactions to advertisements were normal in every way.

    The unknown citizen read a daily newspaper. He responded properly to the commercial ads.  Again, such a detail demonstrates the complete control that the government has over the individual.

    The government is glad to report that this citizen had never lodged a complaint against it, as it is unlikely that he ever composed an editorial to the newspaper, detailing his dissatisfaction with any policies.  He remained content with journalism, as well as with governmental bureaucracy, and he did not speak out against the social engineering.

    Fourth Movement:  Properly Insured

    Policies taken out in his name prove that he was fully insured,
    And his Health-card shows he was once in a hospital but left it cured.

    This subject of the state throughout his life bought the appropriate insurance policies.  His health insurance covered his one hospital stay, and he left the facility returned to health again—and lucky for him, he was admitted to the hospital only once.

    Fifth Movement:  Alarming Information Possessed by the State 

    Both Producers Research and High-Grade Living declare
    He was fully sensible to the advantages of the Installment Plan
    And had everything necessary to the Modern Man,
    A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire.

    The unknown citizen managed to procure all the modern conveniences, such as a record-player, a radio, an automobile, and even a refrigerator.  Although this kind of information may be gleaned from survey companies that research such information, that the state is privy to it is alarming and unsatisfactory for a free society.

    Sixth Movement:  Proper Public Opinion

    Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
    That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
    When there was peace, he was for peace: when there was war, he went.

    This citizen, according to “researchers into Public Opinion,” always maintained ways of thinking that pleased the state.  He believed that there was peace if the state declared “there was peace.” But he accepted the state of war if the state reported that conflict broke out. 

    The governmental “Public Opinion” bureau would not be pleased if the citizen had bucked the system in any way, and no doubt bureaucratic sanctions of some sort would have been applied and reported.  But this citizen passed the “Public Opinion” test.

    Seventh Movement:  Pleasing the State

    He was married and added five children to the population,
    Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his generation.
    And our teachers report that he never interfered with their education.

    This citizen’s family life also continued to please the state: the man took a wife and produced the appropriate number of children.  That he did not “interfer[e] with their education” would be a blessing for the state, and of course, for the teachers’ unions [8].   The prescience of this poem is again observed as teachers’ unions currently are battling parents [9] to maintain power over those that they should serve.

    Eighth Movement:  The Struggle against a Faceless Bureaucracy 

    Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:
    Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.

    Because this “unknown citizen” has been described as a non-thinker and a completely unfeeling individual, the inquiry into his status of freedom and happiness further demonstrates the irony of the situation.  And yet, the final comment adds a further layer of ironic humor. 

    Because the bureaucratic offices had never heard any complaint from the man, they assume he was, in fact, free and happy, or at least thought himself to be thus.  They reason that if anything were wrong, they would have heard. 

    Of course, the reader of this piece becomes painfully aware of the blandness and the dullness that the state has foisted upon this “citizen.” Following sheeplike the authoritative dictates of a powerful state was the status against which the Founding Fathers of the United States of America struggled to form the kind of government which would allow the most freedom for every citizen.

    Poetry and Politics

    While poetry and politics usually remain in an uneasy partnership, in the hands of an expert, a political statement can render itself workable in a poem.  W. H. Auden was an expert at penning poems even of a political nature, even though he came to dislike many of his own political poems and “withdrew several from publication” [10].  

    Auden’s use of irony serves to carry “The Unknown Citizen” to a successful outcome.  More important is the focus of the political poem; as political poems focus on merely damaging the reputation of an opponent or on falsehoods employed in propaganda, the pieces lose credibility.  

    But if, like “The Unknown Citizen,” the piece focuses on universal principles such as freedom and individuality, while dramatizing the results that failed policies bring about, the poem can work brilliantly. 

    Readers will note that the poem does not seek to disparage any government official’s reputation nor does it make propagandistic statements based on inaccuracies and blatant lies; it simply portrays the characteristics that the sheeplike citizen has assimilated in his desire to remain under the radar of state intrusion.

    Sources

    [1] Amity Shlaes.  “Fifteen Minutes of Pain.”  Forbes.  May 1, 2009.
    [2] Meg Sullivan.  “FDR’s Policies Prolonged Depression by 7 Years, UCLA Economists Calculate.” Frontiers of Freedom.  December 14, 2015.
    [3] Eric Boehm.  “Biden’s Tax Plan Means 60 Percent of Taxpayers Will Pay More.”  reason. June 16, 2021.
    [4] Liz Peek.  “Lies, Damned Lies and the Truth about Joe Biden.”  The Hill.  May 22, 2020.
    [5] John Leonard.  “Joe Biden, the Manchurian Candidate.”  American Thinker.  December 10, 2020.
    [6] Editors. “Obama Fires a ‘Robin Hood’ Warning Shot.” New York Post.  October 15, 2008.
    [7] Kevin D. Williamson.  “The Democrats Are the Socialist Party Again.”  National Review.  June 20, 2019.
    [8] Garion Frankel. “Abolish Teachers Unions.”  Washington Examiner.  August 26, 2021.
    [9] Rob Jenkins. “How Parents Can Fight the Teachers’ Unions.”  Townhall.  July 25, 2021.
    [10] Patrick Maxwell.  “Auden: A Poet of Our Time.”  The Article.  December 22, 2019.

  • Man of Steel

    Image created by Grok inspired by the poem
    Image created by Grok inspired by the poem

    Man of Steel

    owed to Auden’s “Unknown Citizen”

    Unbuckled pride strains credulity
    On cinder blocks in the rain—
    Profit the man of steel
    Whose chalk mentality scratches
    Gold flecks of a summer night.
    Blank as the dank posted willows
    That slum the crum tide leeching
    The verbiage of metaphor walking
    Like sticks stuck down by the tracks.

    In the brain waves of goats, they look
    For crystalline stalactites,
    But thiamine quelled the stretch
    As the Man of Steel hovered
    The neighborhood and plunged
    Into the hypocrisy of postmodern wit.
    Narrowing a brow, lifting a finger,
    Touting the untoutable, scraping
    The wilderness out of a circus town.

    Night closes ultimately and Whimsy may fade
    But Dr. Frankenstink will cozy up to her lost foot
    As long as grapevines tangle on the waste land.
    Neither past nor future calls his name, and no island
    Brings comfort as much as departure without infamy.
    He left no logical heir to fan the flames of his poetry—
    That dust-drilled style of poetry that everybody reads
    Until morning echoes in the bottom of a bucket.
    Run on, Soul of the Man of Steel, to heaven’s loft.

  • Ghastly Dream Ghosts

    Image created by Gemini inspired by the poem.
    Image created by Gemini inspired by the poem.

    Ghastly Dream Ghosts

    Some dreams signal ghastly deeds
    In past lives; likely, we prefer 
    Not to be reminded.  The exorcism 
    Of karmic fire offers the only cleansing. 

    Some dream ghosts you grasp:  your mother’s
    Broken heart healed, your public nakedness, robbers
    Breaking down the door.

    But this one recurs and baffles your equilibrium.
    It is an invasion corrupting your private heart:
    The one who baffles you

    Is neither a father nor a God figure,
    Just a former acquaintance you never knew well
    And never touched (at least in this life).

    Nor do you touch in the dream, except innocently,
    Informally, though some strong emotion seems to float 
    Beneath the surface of dream skin.

    In your society of thoughts, you flesh out reasons 
    For this intrusion:  a past life, too dim to remember,
    Gives the only succor,  as you await enlightenment.

    Trying to neutralize resentment, jealousy, or betrayal,
    Your subconscious may be accusing, judging, condemning,
    But for what you remain unaware.

    Each visit of the form reshapes your conscience
    And the day crawls on its belly:
    You feel a sick-sweet love 

    Coiling and spurning itself until you forget again
    And get on with other details, but give it days or weeks
    And the phantom reappears.

    It begs exorcism: Burning karmic seeds to release 
    The ghost in smoke.  You hope this specter is free of you—
    You prefer to think this aberration is yours alone.

    Original poem appearing in my collection titled “Turtle Woman & Other Poems” under the title “Aberration”

  • Edgar Lee Master’ “‘Ace’ Shaw”

    Image: Edgar Lee Masters http://www.poorwilliam.net/al-082314.html Poor William’s Almanack
    Image: Edgar Lee Masters – Poor William’s Almanack

    Edgar Lee Master’ “‘Ace’ Shaw”

    “Ace” Shaw features a typical Spoon River braggart whose report justifies his unseemly choice of profession.

    Introduction and Text of “‘Ace’ Shaw”

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “‘Ace’ Shaw” from Spoon River Anthology attempts to achieve justification of his unseemly choice of vocation by asserting that all jobs are simply the result of “chance.”

    The epitaph featuring the character of “Ace” Shaw therefore, reveals and features a typical Spoon River braggart whose report unveils a dodgy personality, whose report attempts to justify his unseemly choice of profession.

    “Ace” Shaw

    I never saw any difference
    Between playing cards for money
    And selling real estate,
    Practicing law, banking, or anything else.  
    For everything is chance.
    Nevertheless  
    Seest thou a man diligent in business?  
    He shall stand before Kings!

    Commentary on “‘Ace’ Shaw”

    Nicknamed for his chosen profession, “Ace” Shaw is attempting to rehabilitate his reputation as a gambler by claiming that all professions operate on the element of “chance.”

    First Movement:  A Gambler

    I never saw any difference
    Between playing cards for money
    And selling real estate,
    Practicing law, banking, or anything else.  

    “Ace” Shaw, whose nickname identifies him as a gambling man, claims that to him lawyers, bankers, real estate agents, and all others working in any profession or job for money are all gamblers, that is, all those professions are no different from “playing cards for money.”

    Point of view is always the most important issue in determining the conclusions each individual will form.  “Ace” being a gambling man, and one who is apparently dedicated to his craft, then views his choice as noble and as dicey as the next guy’s.  In order to accomplish this rationalization, he has to filter out the actual impact that each profession has on society.

    To this type of personality, narcissistic, egotistic, self-centered to the extreme, others do not matter so long as they render unto him what he thinks he deserves.  That gambling for money offers no service to society does not enter into Ace’s estimation in determining worth—only the ability to acquire money is his measure.  And by that simplistic measure, the gambler does have a point.

    However, Ace does not seem to understand that bankers, lawyers, real estate agents, and members of other professions such a medicine, education, media, or even public service actually provide a service to society for which they are remunerated according to the level of service.  

    That each professional might fail at his work is enough for Ace, and his ilk, to denigrate all of the potential service providers to little more than gamblers, like himself.  This line of thinking punishes the good for not being perfect.

    Second Movement:  Life of Choices

    For everything is chance.

    Ace claims that everything one does in life remains a gamble.  But some things are more fraught with the possibilities for negative occurrences than others.   If “everything is chance,” and nothing is sure, then why not set one’s goal higher than mere card playing? 

    Why not do something that offers a real service?  The only answer is that Ace prefers the life of a cardsharp; at the same time, intuitively, he knows his choice is less honorable than the bankers and lawyers he tries to belittle in order to make himself seem more important.

    Third Movement:   Lazy Man’s Philosophy 

    Nevertheless  
    Seest thou a man diligent in business?  
    He shall stand before Kings!

    Ace is lazy.  So instead of explaining his circumstances in order to prop up his choice, he simply quotes Proverbs 22:29:  “Seest thou a man diligent in business? / He shall stand before Kings!”  By introducing the quotation with “nevertheless,” Ace appears to be contradicting his earlier claims, but his personality would not allow such humility.  

    The gambler is once again simply justifying his choice by claiming that his proficiency will stand him in good stead.  The gambling Ace will “stand before Kings”—and not before the “mean” men who appear in the line, “he shall not stand before mean men,” which follows the two lines from Proverbs that Ace quotes.

  • Let Shadows Depart

    Image created by Grok inspired by the poem
    Image created by Grok inspired by the poem

    Let Shadows Depart

    “Shadows – hold their breath.” —Emily Dickinson

    The Divine Self engages them—
    Yet they wobble with closed eye. 

    Music’s mystery permeates their depth
    And midnight ponders heavy dreams.

    Bless the fog of days strung in agony
    By the temptress’s needle.

    The Divine Flame will sear the now
    And frame the open pit of desire

    Where tongues that clipped too close their matted fabric
    And stalked in vain a dubious retort— 

    I will never again open the seal that kept me safe
    From the monstrous lie that Evil and her minions spawn. 

  • D. H. Lawrence’s Novel “Women in Love”

    D. H. Lawrence 1280 Transcend
    Image: D. H. Lawrence – Transcend Media Service

    D. H. Lawrence’s Novel Women in Love

    D. H. Lawrence’s Women in Love offers a study of the 20th-century issue of the divided nature of the human mind.  The flawed characters of Rupert and Ursula reveal an unsolvable problem that continues to plague the conscience of humanity, as it struggles for proper behavior.

    Lawrentian Irony

    D. H. Lawrence’s novel Women in Love has remained the novelist’s most complex yet subtle works.  A superficial reading seems to reveal that the two main characters, Rupert Birkin and Ursula Brangwen, are moving toward Lawrence’s notion of the ideal love, that is, unity in love.  

    On the contrary, however, is the fact that the couple’s unsatisfactory marriage highlights the Lawrentian irony that promotes the satire in which the novelist has steeped his most complex novel.

    The Symbol of Fidelity

    In A Reader’s Guide to D. H. Lawrence, Philip Hobsbaum points out that the opal ring that Rupert gives to Ursula symbolizes fidelity.  Of the trio of rings Rupert casually hands Ursula—a sapphire and a topaz as well as the opal—only the opal fits her ring finger.  

    Lawrence’s use of the opal indicates irony; a literal interpretation of the meaning of the opal would render the novel a simplistic story with a happy ending.  A close analysis of the characters in this work and of Lawrence’s idea of modern man’s divided nature reveals that this novel is a highly complex satire of that divided nature.

    Both Hobsbaum and Richard Aldington have applauded Lawrence’s genius for satire as it is demonstrated in Women in Love.  According to Lawrence’s own ethic expounded in Psychoanalysis and the Unconscious, “the goal in life is the coming to perfection of each single individual” (100).  

    Lawrence further explains that “recognition of the abysmal other” and “the twofold passionate flux of sympathetic love, subjective abdominal and objective devotional” must balance and be equally accepted by the individual.  Individuals must achieve this equilibrium before they can experience an ideal relationship.

    The Lawrentian Balance

    According to his ideas of equilibrium, Lawrence creates the characters of his novels who thus satirize the imbalance in modern man and woman.  Ursula, at the point in the novel that she is fitted with the ring symbolizing fidelity, has not achieved the Lawrentian balance.  And neither has the character, Rupert, who is about to become her lover.  Both Rupert and Ursula have a void in their lives—a void that they never know how to fill.  

    Ursula’s former lover Skrebensky, whom readers met in The Rainbow, was unable to fill the void for her, and Rupert’s relationship with Hermione has left him empty as well.  Because these characters are not perfected as individuals, they bring their imperfections to their relationships with their lovers.

    That the ring fitting Ursula’s ring finger symbolizes fidelity highlights the irony of their situations.  Neither character—Rupert who gives the ring, nor Ursula whom it fits—is capable of fidelity because they are still unfaithful to their own true nature, the unified nature that knows how to recognize and accept that “abysmal other.”  

    These characters exemplify modern man and woman who have not reached the Lawrentian perfection, whose failure to recognize that they have divided their psyches “has torn the modern world into two halves, the one half warring for the voluntary, objective, separatist control, the other for the pure sympathetic” (100).

    Appearances

    The fact that Rupert and Ursula do marry and verbally declare fidelity effects the situation against which the irony is directed.  Ostensibly, the couple strives to unite, but at the deep personal level where unity ultimately prevails, they remain divided.  According to F. H. Langman, 

    The tale, if we can trust it, simply does not present the marriage of Birkin and Ursula as ideal in itself or as an adequate solution to the problems presented.  On the contrary, an important thesis of the novel is that no fully satisfying personal relationship is possible to people placed, like Birkin and Ursula, in a social and religious vacuum.  (81-82)

    Lawrence emphasizes repeatedly in his Psychoanalysis and the Unconscious: “No human being can develop save through the polarized connection with other beings” (108).  His character Rupert Birkin insists that he cannot feel complete without a deep bond of love with a man as well as with a woman.  

    It is Rupert’s failure to come to terms with his sexual orientation that underscores his split psyche, and his marriage to Ursula cannot serve to weld it.  In his original opening chapter to Women in Love called “A Prologue,” Lawrence explicitly elucidates Rupert’s affinities: 

    He wanted to be in love with a woman.  He wanted all the while to feel this kindled, loving attraction towards a beautiful woman, that he would often feel toward a handsome man.  But he could not.  Whenever it was a case of a woman, there entered in too much spiritual, sisterly love; or else, in reaction, there was only a bestial, callous sort of lust.  (58)

    Lawrence delineates Rupert’s sexual orientation quite clearly in his rejected draft and the impact of Rupert’s repressing that nature becomes the focus, however covert, in the published version.  

    According to George H. Ford, Lawrence decided against the explicit portrayal of Rupert’s same-sex attraction because he feared censorship.  He had just been through the ordeal of censorship with The Rainbow and could not afford it again so soon (39-40).  

    Split Psyche

    Ursula does not relieve Rupert’s burden of a split psyche; she cannot even understand him.  Their violent disagreements continue throughout their relationship.  On occasions, she merely acquiesces to his wishes; an example of this acquiescence is the “Chair” episode.  They purchase an old chair and Rupert declaims against materialism.

    The couple then bickers about the merits of Jane Austen’s England and their own, and finally, for what seems an unmotivated capitulation, Ursula just gives in and says she agrees that they need no possessions, and thus she donates the chair to a young, scruffy-looking city couple whom Lawrence describes as a couple also falling far from his ideal of balance and perfection in love.  

    Lawrence tells readers in his rejected chapter that Rupert is divided against himself:  “he kept this secret [‘his spasmodic affinity for the men he saw’] even from himself” (61).  Because he cannot even bring his feelings before his own scrutiny, he has little hope of making the Lawrentian connection with Ursula—a connection which only balanced beings can achieve.

    Infidelity to Self

    As Langman writes, “The most painful question in the whole novel, a question that precisely reveals the limited value of the experiment in marriage, is Ursula’s question:  ‘why aren’t I enough?’”  (86)  Ursula claims that Rupert is enough for her, and because she feels this way, she cannot come to terms with Rupert’s inclinations.  Rupert has learned to repress his nature, but according to Lawrence, that kind of repression goes against the self—it represents infidelity to the self (Psych. 108).  

    Rupert and Ursula’s relationship, therefore, is not the nourishing meeting of souls that they at times during their affair have claimed it to be.  The opal ring serves as an important device for satirizing that relationship.  The irony that Ursula’s ring finger fits the symbol of fidelity foreshadows the marriage which solves no problems, but, in the words of George H. Ford, “the possibility is left, as in the best of Lawrence’s writings, dangling” (41).

    At the end of the couple’s final conversation, readers observe that they are indeed left only with a possibility.  Rupert and Ursula are still not united but still struggling with conflicting attitudes.  The death of Gerald has left Rupert without a man to love; he says:  “I wanted eternal union with a man too:  another kind of love.”  Ursula counters:  “I don’t believe it.  It’s an obstinacy, a theory, a perversity.” 

    Ursula then continues:  “You can’t have two kinds of love.  Why should you!”  And Rupert responds:  “It seems as if I can’t.  Yet I wanted it.”  And Rupert’s and the novel’s final words are:  “‘I don’t believe that,’ he answered.”  Whether this couple ever finds that Lawrentian ideal of perfection no doubt remains a possibility, but the satire remains intact.  The opal ring, symbol of fidelity, fits Ursula’s finger, but the fidelity between the partners remains illusive.

    A slightly abbreviated version of this article first appeared in The Explicator, Volume 46, Number 2, Winter 1988.

    Works Cited

    Aldington, Richard.  Introduction.  Women in Love.  By D. H. Lawrence.  New York:  Viking P, 1960.  ix-xii. Print.

    Ford, George H.  “Notes to Lawrence’s Prologue to Women in Love.”  The Rainbow and Women in Love: A Casebook.  Ed. Colin Clarke.  London: Macmillan, 1969.  35-42. Print.

    Hobsbaum, Philip.  A Reader’s Guide to D. H. Lawrence.  New York:  Thames and Hudson, 1981. Print.

    Langman, F. H.  “Women in Love.”  Critics on D. H. Lawrence:  Readings in Literary Criticism.  Ed. W. T. Andrews.  81-87. Print.

    Lawrence, D. H.  “Prologue to Women in Love.”  The Rainbow and Women in Love: A Casebook.  Ed. Colin Clarke.  London: Macmillan, 1969.  43-64. Print.

    Image: Book cover Women in Love from my personal library

  • Emily Dickinson’s “To lose one’s faith – surpass” 

    Image: Emily Dickinson - Amherst College - Daguerrotype of the poet at age 17, circa 1847 - likely the only authentic, extant likeness of the poet
    Image: Emily Dickinson – Amherst College – Daguerrotype of the poet at age 17, circa 1847 – likely the only authentic, extant likeness of the poet

    Emily Dickinson’s “To lose one’s faith – surpass” 

    Emily Dickinson’s “To lose one’s faith – surpass” reveals the speaker’s vision of faith as a singular inward inheritance whose loss exceeds material loss.

    Introduction and Text of “To lose one’s faith – surpass”

    Emily Dickinson’s “To lose one’s faith – surpass” is an American-Innovative lyric featuring the Dickinsonian plethora of dashes, while remaining unrimed. The speaker contrasts spiritual loss with material loss.

    The tone remains steady and reflective, allowing meaning to unfold through simple comparative statements rather than extended argument or narrative expansion.  The speaker frames faith as something more interior than property or inheritance. The poem moves between material imagery and inward consequence.

    To lose one’s faith – surpass –

    To lose one’s faith – surpass –
    The loss of an Estate –
    Because Estates can be
    Replenished – faith cannot –

    Inherited with Life –
    Belief – but once – can be –
    Annihilate a single clause –
    And Being’s – Beggary –

    Commentary on “To lose one’s faith – surpass”

    The speaker presents faith as an inner possession whose loss creates a deeper condition than material ruin. The poem moves toward inward deprivation rather than external loss.

    First Stanza: Cannot Get Back

    To lose one’s faith – surpass –
    The loss of an Estate –
    Because Estates can be
    Replenished – faith cannot –

    The speaker begins with a quiet but firm comparison between faith and material inheritance. An estate represents something large, structured, and recoverable in worldly terms.

    The speaker completes the contrast by establishing permanence in loss. An estate may return through circumstance or restoration, but faith does not follow that pattern of recovery.

    The tone remains calm, almost observational, as if the speaker is stating a condition of reality rather than offering persuasion or argument. The word “surpass” suggests that spiritual loss rises above material loss in seriousness. The speaker sets a hierarchy of inward and outward value.

    The estate functions as a symbol of continuity in earthly life, where loss can be repaired through time, labor, or inheritance. Faith, however, is treated as singular and non-repeatable. Once absent, it does not return in the same inward form.

    The speaker’s phrasing suggests a quiet finality, where spiritual absence becomes a lasting condition rather than a temporary state.  The simplicity of diction reinforces the seriousness of the claim, allowing the idea to feel inevitable rather than debated.

    In earlier commentaries on Dickinsonian poems, I have discussed Dickinson’s creating  metaphysical weight through plain comparison rather than rhetorical expansion.  The speaker’s structure mirrors this method, placing two forms of loss side by side until their difference becomes unavoidable.

    Paramahansa Yogananda explains that inward perception of spiritual reality requires sustained alignment, and when that alignment is broken, outer substitutes cannot fully replace it, as taught.

    The speaker’s comparison therefore moves beyond economics into inward life itself, where restoration is not guaranteed.  The stanza closes with a sense of irreversible distinction between what can be regained and what cannot.

    Second Stanza: You, too, maybe!

    Inherited with Life –
    Belief – but once – can be –
    Annihilate a single clause –
    And Being’s – Beggary –

    The speaker shifts toward origin, suggesting that belief is not merely learned but carried within life itself as an initial endowment.  The phrase “but once” introduces a sense of singularity, as if belief arrives in a form that does not naturally duplicate.

    The speaker turns language itself into a structure of being. A disruption in understanding is presented as capable of total inward collapse.  The “single clause” suggests that even a small fracture in comprehension can affect the whole structure of belief.

    The tone remains restrained, yet the implication is severe, as though identity depends upon coherence of inward language.  The speaker concludes with a stark image of existential deprivation. “Beggary” becomes a condition of being rather than a social state.

    The loss described is not partial but total in inward effect, where existence continues but without spiritual fullness.  The simplicity of the final phrase intensifies its meaning, leaving the impression of stripped interior life.

    In other essays, I have noted that Dickinson often compresses entire states of existence into single concluding words that carry structural weight.  Paramahansa Yogananda explains that when inner awareness of divine connection is obscured, life continues outwardly but loses its sustaining inner richness.

    The speaker’s logic suggests that faith is not supplementary but foundational to inward coherence. The poem ends by presenting existence without faith as a condition of essential lack, where being remains but fullness and purpose are withdrawn.

  • Emily Dickinson’s “The reticent volcano keeps”

    Image: Emily Dickinson - Amherst College - Daguerrotype of the poet at age 17, circa 1847 - likely the only authentic, extant likeness of the poet
    Image: Emily Dickinson – Amherst College – Daguerrotype of the poet at age 17, circa 1847 – likely the only authentic, extant likeness of the poet

    Emily Dickinson’s “The reticent volcano keeps”

    The speaker in Emily Dickinson’s “The reticent volcano keeps” is musing on the nature of silence and secrets, transforming metaphorically a volcano into a figure of thoughtful restraint. This idea creates a paradox that challenges the nature and purpose of human speech.

    Introduction and Text of “The reticent volcano keeps”

    The speaker in Emily Dickinson’s “The reticent volcano keeps” is exploring the tense relationship between divine knowledge and human awareness by delving into nature’s ability to keep secrets as opposed to humanity’s driving need to speak out and to be heard by others.

    The poem, thus, is ultimately a study in contrasts. The speaker concocts a parallel universe, in which the forces of nature adhere to perfect discretion as human beings often go off the rails by remaining loquacious and even indiscreet, as they engage loudly in mere gossip.

    The metaphorical volcano becomes the speaker’s prime example of nature’s superior restraint. Unlike explosive human beings, this volcanic force has mastered the art of keeping secrets and thus holds its ever awake strategy in blissful silence.

    The reticent volcano keeps

    The reticent volcano keeps
    His never slumbering plan —
    Confided are his projects pink
    To no precarious man.

    If nature will not tell the tale
    Jehovah told to her
    Can human nature not survive
    Without a listener?

    Admonished by her buckled lips
    Let every babbler be
    The only secret people keep
    Is Immortality.

    Commentary on “The reticent volcano keeps”

    Emily Dickinson’s “The reticent volcano keeps” creates a speaker who comments on the nature of silence and secrets. The speaker employs a metaphor of a volcano to compare the ideas of restraint to the chatty nature of humanity, whose only secret “Is Immortality.”

    First Stanza: The Volcano’s Secret

    The reticent volcano keeps
    His never slumbering plan —
    Confided are his projects pink
    To no precarious man.

    The speaker begins by metaphorically creating the image of a  volcano that keeps secrets.  There is almost a hint of personification of that geologic force, as it is described as “reticent” but capable of deliberately and consciously making the choice to keep its secrets.

    By calling the volcano “reticent,” the speaker gives it a personality with intention. Thus the volcano becomes human-like with the ability to make choices.  And its choice is to stay mum about its purpose for its activities.

    The image of the “never slumbering plan” heralds forth a disturbing tension. On its surface, the volcano seems to remain dormant, yet beneath that quiet surface rumbles a permanent, definite intention. 

    According to this fantasized scenario, the volcano is not experiencing a passive rest but instead is engaging in the restraint of wide-awake watching.  Thus the speaker is implying that actual power comes with restraint, not from revelation. 

    Stated another way:  the volcano’s power lies in what it does not say, or what it refuses to reveal about its hidden activities.  The volcano does not merely have a plan, but it also protects and preserves that plan from outside observation that would cause interference with its intentions.

    The speaker is therefore presenting the volcano as a model of perfect prudence, a power that is capable of destroying the landscape yet chooses to keep its secrets.  The speaker is implying that such choices are the result of self-control.  And that kind of self-control is to be admired.

    The speaker unveils minor details, labeling them “projects pink,” which suggest images of dawn, flowering blossoms, or a gently glowing fire.  Still, the volcano reveals these intimate secrets to no one, definitely not to unreliable human beings.

    The color “pink” brings an unexpected gentleness into the scenario of volcanic force.   The speaker seems to be suggesting that even the most dramatic natural forces contain delicate qualities hidden from view.

    The speaker portrays human beings as “precarious” because they remain basically unreliable and too fickle to be trusted with nature’s serious purposes. Human beings are deemed unworthy to be afforded information about nature’s activities.  

    So, the phrase “confided are” suggests that the volcano’s secrets exist in a state of trust. But such trust is not extended to humans, again because human beings have not proven themselves to be trustworthy.  

    The speaker has thus created a hierarchy of trustworthiness. The volcano is placed at the top of the spectrum and humanity at the bottom. The natural world, as opposed to the human world thus serves as the reliable retainer of divine secrets.

    Second Stanza: Divine Silence

    If nature will not tell the tale
    Jehovah told to her
    Can human nature not survive
    Without a listener?

    The speaker then broadens her view beyond the volcanic keeper of secrets to encompass all of nature in this conspiracy of silence. The speaker suggests that God Himself has shared secrets with the natural world.

    The phrase “the tale / Jehovah told to her” implies the intimate conversational relationship between Creator and creation. The speaker presents this scenario as a whispered confidence that remains eternally unbroken.

    By employing the name “Jehovah,” the speaker invokes one of the most sacred names for God. This raises the conversation beyond casual exchange to profound holiness and therefore deserving of absolute attention.

    In other words, the speaker is implying that nature serves as God’s confidante. Unlike the human being,  who is supposed to be God’s most valuable and honored creation but has fallen short, the natural world has proven itself worthy of divine trust and continues to honor that sacred responsibility.

    The term “tale” points to a narrative or story, most likely mythology. The speaker thus implies that God has shared His most profound stories of creation with nature, stories that remain hidden.

    The speaker presents this divine sharing as a test of loyalty. Nature has passed the test by maintaining perfect silence, while humanity has failed time and again because of its compulsive need to speak.  

    At this point, the speaker poses the poem’s poignant question: If nature can keep divine secrets, why cannot human beings behave honorably, without constantly needing to speak and be heard?

    The term “survive” suggests the strong need for listeners; it is not merely a preference but an existential need. The speaker thus implies that humans require witnesses to their thoughts to maintain their very existence.  

    Ultimately, the speaker is creating a sharp distinction between “nature” and “human nature.”  Nature is capable of self-sufficient silence, while human nature has acquired the bad habit of constant verbal interaction just to function.

    The question becomes philosophical as well as practical. The speaker wonders whether humanity’s need for an audience is weakness or simply part of its essential character as social beings.  

    The speaker implies that humanity’s inability to keep secrets stems from its fundamental need for connection.  Human beings speak because they must be heard to feel that they are living.

    The question rises to a note of near-pathetic bewilderment. The speaker remains genuinely baffled by humanity’s inability to match nature’s perfect discretion and self-contained silence.

    Third Stanza: The Moral Lesson

    Admonished by her buckled lips
    Let every babbler be
    The only secret people keep
    Is Immortality.

    The speaker concludes with nature as an instructor of ethical and moral behavior.   The image of nature’s “buckled lips,” clasped tightly, serves to castigate human compulsive loquaciousness.

    The image of “buckled lips” is also mechanical as well as organic. The speaker suggests that while nature’s silence is instinctive, it is also deliberate, making it a disciplined choice.  

    The speaker chastises “every babbler,” shaming human beings for their inability to hold their tongues. Apparently, they cannot mirror the volcano’s patient discretion or even understand nature’s faithful, enduring silence.

    The term “babbler” is especially damning, reducing human communication to meaningless chatter.  Such constant talk lacks the dignity of nature’s meaningfully purposeful silence.

    The speaker delivers the poem’s most devastating irony. The one secret that humans do manage to keep is “Immortality”—their silence about death and what lies beyond.  This final revelation transforms the entire poem’s earlier criticisms. 

    In this final irony, the speaker both condemns and redeems humanity.  Humans are babblers about everything except what matters most—their own eternal destiny and ultimate meaning.

    But what does the speaker imply by claiming that humanity keeps secrets about Immortality?  Merely the fact that most of humanity speaks and behaves without giving Immortality or what lies beyond the grave much thought.

    The topic of “Immortality” is left up to poets, philosophers, and theologians.  And although these groups have proffered tomes on the issue, their theories go largely unnoticed on the street.  

    The speaker would have talk about life beyond this life become more open to everyone.  She seems to feel that the one secret that humanity continues to keep is the only one that truly matters.  

    She thus would have humanity keep some of its more chatty issues to itself, reorder its thinking, and begin producing volcanic force in conversations that would truly move the culture along to a more open sharing of eternal truths.  But first, of course, she must try to influence humanity to take an interest in profundity instead of petty, chatty gossip.

  • A Sense of Sorrow

    Image:  Created by ChatGPT inspired by the poem
    Image: Created by ChatGPT inspired by the poem

    A Sense of Sorrow

    The darkness and vastness of the center
    Bends over the vastness of each beginning—
    Over the rivers of memory, you spread
    Rivers of sick sorrow to each end.

    The end of each vein springs blood
    And blood seeps into the water of light.
    Water finds its own reference point
    And each point fingers mud on granite.

    The mud that covers your soul
    Will shuck itself in the soul of sorrow.

  • Langston Hughes’ “Night Funeral in Harlem”

    Langston Hughes - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/sojourner - Photograph by Carl Van Vechten / Carl Van Vechten Trust / Beinecke Library, Yale - 1280
    Image: Langston Hughes – Photograph by Carl Van Vechten / Carl Van Vechten Trust / Beinecke Library, Yale – 1280

    Langston Hughes’ “Night Funeral in Harlem”

    The speaker in Langston Hughes’ “Night Funeral in Harlem” wonders how this poor dead boy’s friends and relatives are able to afford such a lavish funeral.

    Introduction and Text of “Night Funeral in Harlem”

    Langston Hughes’ “Night Funeral in Harlem” is an example of the poet’s affinity for the blues. He employs a form that includes the blues flavor, allowing the reader to hear a mournful voice that implies issues that he never actually discusses.

    The speaker’s questions are more than mere decoration, and their implications attempt to make a political and sociological, as well as religious, evaluation. The poem’s form features an inconsistent conglomeration of rimed stanzas, with varied refrains.

    Night Funeral in Harlem

         Night funeral
         In Harlem:

         Where did they get
         Them two fine cars?

    Insurance man, he did not pay—
    His insurance lapsed the other day—
    Yet they got a satin box
    for his head to lay.

         Night funeral
         In Harlem:

         Who was it sent
         That wreath of flowers?

    Them flowers came
    from that poor boy’s friends—
    They’ll want flowers, too,
    When they meet their ends.

         Night funeral
         in Harlem:

         Who preached that
         Black boy to his grave?

    Old preacher man
    Preached that boy away—
    Charged Five Dollars
    His girl friend had to pay.

         Night funeral
         In Harlem:

    When it was all over
    And the lid shut on his head
    and the organ had done played
    and the last prayers been said
    and six pallbearers
    Carried him out for dead
    And off down Lenox Avenue
    That long black hearse done sped,
         The street light
         At his corner
         Shined just like a tear—
    That boy that they was mournin’
    Was so dear, so dear
    To them folks that brought the flowers,
    To that girl who paid the preacher man—
    It was all their tears that made
         That poor boy’s
         Funeral grand.

         Night funeral
         In Harlem.

    Reading:  

    Commentary on “Night Funeral in Harlem”

    The speaker in Langston Hughes’ “Night Funeral in Harlem” jabs insults at these mourners as he wonders how this poor dead boy’s friends and relatives are able to afford such a lavish funeral.

    First Movement:  An Critical Observer

         Night funeral
         In Harlem:

         Where did they get
         Them two fine cars?

    Insurance man, he did not pay—
    His insurance lapsed the other day—
    Yet they got a satin box
    for his head to lay.

         Night funeral
         In Harlem:

         Who was it sent
         That wreath of flowers?

    The speaker begins with his refrain that features his subject, “Night funeral / In Harlem.” He then shoots in his first question that is ultimately insulting to the mourners. The speaker wonders, “Where did they get / Them two fine cars?” 

    The speaker’s dialect is intended to reveal him as an intimate with the mourners, yet his questions actually separate him from them. If he is one of them, why does he have to ask where the cars come from? His concern, therefore, comes across as disingenuous.

    The speaker then introduces the “insurance man,” who might be the reason for the “fine cars,” but no, the poor boy’s “insurance lapsed the other day.” Again, the speaker’s knowledge of the particulars of the situation clash; he knows the people well enough to know that their insurance lapsed, but yet not well enough to know who, in fact, is paying for the lavish funeral. 

    And then the speaker offers a further bit of incongruity that these poor folks have managed to supply a “satin box / for [the deceased’s] head to lay.” The speaker offers these incongruities but never manages to make clear his purpose.

    Second Movement:  A Question of Integrity

    Them flowers came
    from that poor boy’s friends—
    They’ll want flowers, too,
    When they meet their ends.

         Night funeral
         in Harlem:

         Who preached that
         Black boy to his grave?

    The speaker again introduces his next stanza with a variation on the opening refrain: “Night funeral / In Harlem: / / Who was it sent / That wreath of flowers?” Again, the speaker reveals that his distance from the mourners is so great that he has to ask about the flowers. But then he admits that he does actually know that the flowers came from “that poor boy’s friends.”

    But the speaker then insults those friends by accusing them of sending them only because “They’ll want flowers, too, / When they meet their ends,” and also implying that he wonders how those friends paid for the flowers.

    Third Movement:  Is Race Really the Issue?

    Night funeral
      Night funeral
         in Harlem:

         Who preached that
         Black boy to his grave?

    Old preacher man
    Preached that boy away—
    Charged Five Dollars
    His girl friend had to pay.

    The third stanza’s opening varied refrain asks, “Who preached that / Black boy to his grave?” He reveals for the first time that the deceased is black but does not clarify why he should offer the race of the dead at this point.  

    The had been implying that the deceased was black all along by using stereotypical Black English and placing the funeral in Harlem, which was heavily populated by African Americans at the time that the poet was writing.

    The preacher is portrayed then as a money-grubber, charging five dollars to “preach[ ] that boy away,” and the poor boy’s girlfriend had to pay the preacher the five dollar charge.  Again, how it is that the speaker knows the girlfriend paid the preacher, but that he does not know who paid for two limousines, casket, flowers?

    Fourth Movement:   Despite the Insults

        Night funeral
         In Harlem:

    When it was all over
    And the lid shut on his head
    and the organ had done played
    and the last prayers been said
    and six pallbearers
    Carried him out for dead
    And off down Lenox Avenue
    That long black hearse done sped,
         The street light
         At his corner
         Shined just like a tear—
    That boy that they was mournin’
    Was so dear, so dear
    To them folks that brought the flowers,
    To that girl who paid the preacher man—
    It was all their tears that made
         That poor boy’s
         Funeral grand.

         Night funeral
         In Harlem.

    The final stanza is a rather flabby summation of what has happened during this Harlem funeral at night. The opening refrain merely reiterates the subject, “Night funeral / In Harlem.”

    Gone is the additional commentary as appeared in the three opening refrains, but the speaker does leave the affair on a compassionate note; at least he can admit, “It was all their tears that made / That poor boy’s / Funeral grand.”  

    Despite his probing, insulting questions, he finally admits that the importance of the event is that it shows the love the mourners had for their dearly departed.

    Image:  Langston Hughes - Commemorative Stamp  http://usstampgallery.com/view.php?id=0787693b268f0944d0264088b300c02721d73814&Langston_Hughes&st=Langston%20Hughes&ss=&t=&s=8&syear=&eyear=  US Stamp Gallery
    Image: Langston Hughes – Commemorative Stamp  – US Stamp Gallery