Skip to main content

summer reading (Richard Hugo)

Richard Hugo is most famous for this devastating little villanelle, called The Freaks at Spurgin Field Road. I just finished his first book, A Run of Jacks. I'd no idea it was his first book. I'll excerpt two stanzas from a poem called "Northwest Retrospective: Mark Tobey." (Mark Tobey was a painter.)

Beyond Van Allen rings, the stars
don't glitter, arrogant as moons.
When did we start? Light-years ago.
Why did we come? No matter. We
are not returning to that world
of ditch and strain, the research terms:
cryogenic fuels, free radicals,
plasma jets, coordinated fusion.
Only the last, in all this void, applies.
A universe is fusing in our eyes.



Why return to air and land, when
free from weight and the weight
of hope, we float toward that blue
that kisses man forever out of form.
Forget the earth, those images and lies.
They said there'd be no wind out here,
but something blows from star to star
to clean our eyes and touch our hair.

Reaching the silence after the last word was like hearing the end of a piece of music that I didn't know was playing until it was over. There's no rhyme scheme, although plenty of soft reverberations ("air" and "hair" in the last stanza). Partly it must be that the meter is fundamentally iambic, and much of it is in pentameter -- although the shortening of the last two lines to tetrameter is quite an effect. And the words are so simple. I love a poet that turns a list of nouns into verse, as in "cryogenic fuels, free radicals."

Hugo was born in Washington state and is considered a regionalist. He has great one-liners too. There's one in a poem towards the beginning, called "West Marginal Way":

Some places are forever afternoon.

Comments

  1. 'The dim boy claps' is more American, I think, than this one -- as in, the landscape is more unmistakeably American. I remembered that really well too.

    In this one, the line 'When did we start? Light-years ago.' seems very familiar. And it's a good one. And I love the ending, the last three lines.

    It's also quite nice that (as you say) he doesn't try to squeeze in as many fancy words as possible -- I'm sure poets do it subconsciously, but sometimes contemporary poems that I read seem to be just a list of unusual words the poet is proud of knowing.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

February, March, April reading

Crystallography , Christian Bok Glass, Irony, and God , Anne Carson The Dolphin  and Day by Day  (selections), Robert Lowell Dolls , Claire Millikin Burying the Mountain , Shangyang Fang In the Language of My Captor , Shane McCrae frank: sonnets , Diane Seuss All the Flowers Kneeling , Paul Tran Border-Crosser with a Lamborghini Dream , Juan Felipe Herrera Ajax , Sophocles Trojan Women , Euripides The Bacchae , Euripides (from 2021; listed now) Iphigenia in Aulis , Euripides (from 2021; listed now) Orestes , Euripides Alceste , Euripides Macbeth , Shakespeare Coriolanus , Shakespeare (from 2021; listed now) Pericles , Shakespeare (from 2021; listed now)

greatness

The NY Times has run an excellent article on greatness in poetry. It's always interesting to read NY Times on poetry -- there was a fascinating one about Jorie Graham's entrance to Harvard (Valhalla?) -- because NY Times believes in poetry, but is egoistic enough to be upset when it's confronted with something it doesn't understand. That's a very useful quality, because it respectfully/hesitantly calls a pear a pear, instead of some helium-filled blather. Maybe because of it, the article anointed only one great post-Eliot poet: Elizabeth Bishop. I'm pleased and agree. (There was some noise about Ashbery, but we'll see what happens 20 years after he's dead, which means in roughly 10 years. I mean, 21.) The criterion that article settled on for greatness is: “demonstrating the qualities that make poetry seem interesting and worthwhile to such a degree that subsequent practitioners of the art form have found her work a more useful resource than the work