(Source) When you have held up a small cardboard alphabet card for a writer who is completely non-speaking and non-moving (except for the eyes), and pointed first to the A, then the B, then C, then D, until you get to the first letter of the first word of the first line of the poem she has been composing in her head all week, and she lifts her eyes when that letter is touched to say yes, you feel with a fresh immediacy the human drive for creation, self-expression, accuracy, honesty and wit–and the importance of writing, which celebrates the value of each person’s unique story and song.
I love the sentiment that is expressed here by Sharon Olds, one of my favorite poets. I first read Satan Says in college in 1989 and was shocked into awe. It was my first contact with contemporary poetry and I fell in love. Olds became my inspiration. Half of my poetry workshop returned my first poem, “Threesome,” without comment – undoubtedly due to its fair representation of evil.
The image of Olds experiencing this moment of epiphany with a fellow writer is itself poetry. Her description of the “human drive” is apt. But isn’t there as much a human drive for war as for poetry? It seems that both have held human hearts in their hands since the inception of time.
Is Poetry A Statement Of Peace?
Former poet laureate Robert Pinsky declined First Lady Laura Bush’s offer to participate in an event in 2003. Like Olds, he made a similar statement against the meeting and declined to attend. I respected his decision then and I respect Olds’ decision now to decline an invitation to attend the upcoming National Book Festival on September 24. I can’t help but wonder, though, if Olds would attend the event were it to be held on the eve of Clinton’s tail-wagging-the-dog attack upon Yugoslavia.
The National Book Festival is an event that has preceded the Iraq War and is sponsored by the Library of Congress. The event Pinsky declined to attend was titled “Poetry And The American Voice,” an event that was put together by First Lady Laura Bush to discuss the poetry of Emily Dickinson, Walt Whitman, and Langston Hughes. It had nothing to do with the Iraq War. Not until Sam Hamill, a pacifist, decided to make it about the Iraq War.
Hamill was the first poet to decline the first lady’s invitation. He sent out letters to a gaggle of his poet friends to do the same. Pinsky responded in kind. So did many others. Mrs. Bush canceled her event. So much for making poetry relevant. Gee, these poets can really put up a fight when it matters, can’t they?
Why I’m Against The Iraq War
I was against the Iraq War from the beginning. I was also an officer in the National Guard when Bush decided to invade the country. In July 2004, my unit was activated and I spent all of 2005 playing around in Rumsfeld’s Sandbox. I hated it. I found myself in the midst of a moral dilemma – on the one hand, I was against the war; on the other hand, I wanted to do the right thing. The dilemma part was, there was no right thing. If I went, I was betraying my conscience; if I didn’t go, I was betraying my honor. Either way, I lost.
I decided to go. Mostly, my decision was due to my wife, who had been the wearer of my ring for nine months. I didn’t want to let her down, go to prison for refusing to subject myself to the Empire’s demands. That would not have been fair to her. Nevertheless, that was my impulse. Then, there was my ego. I knew that if I resigned my commission and refused to serve that men I respected would call me a wuss and accuse me of betraying my country. Never mind that it was my commander in chief who was involved in the betrayal. Ego can damn the soul.
To me, it is not about peace. It never was. It is about justice. I’m a believer in Just War Tradition. Sometimes, it is necessary to fight. That’s the beef that I have with the Poets Against War flock. They are not so much about justice as they are about peace at any cost. The part about that which I find objectionable is the idea that a man must become a slave in order to have peace. But then, I don’t believe that he should become a slave for war, either. Isn’t there a middle ground?
The Sadness Of Poetry And War
Poets like Hamill and Olds feel significant because they believe poetry is superior to war. But is it? I’d say it is only when it remains true to itself and to humanity, when it aspires to that level of purity described by Olds above. Unfortunately, many of the poets in the I Hate War movement are not that sincere. There is a pretentiousness in their absurdities.
I admire Olds. I love her poetry. She was one of my first influences, way back in college in the 1980s. I’d never heard of Hamill before 2003. I like Pinsky. I admired him as poet laureate. Still, their ideas on war do not match the respect they have earned as poets. While they can think deeply on the subject of literature, it seems they have rather shallow sympathies with regard to the subject of war. They are informed, it seems, by some petty childishness that fails to understand the human condition, especially its destructive side. Our president and some of his friends, on the other hand, have the opposite problem. They can intellectualize war, but when it comes to diving into the human spirit of poetry they are lost. This then is the sadness of poetry and war – if you are in deep with one you may not be so deep into the other. That is tragedy.
It is also what puts poets like me at odds with both sides of the debate that never was. I have an affinity for both humanities – the humanity of poetry and the humanity of war. I do not like war. I respect it. It sometimes is necessary. The problem with the war in Iraq is that it was not necessary, nor was it just. Unfortunately, those of us who know better were never given a choice. And if Hamill, Olds, and Pinsky had their way, poets who believe in the justness of war wouldn’t have a choice there either.
No related posts.
I like your site design. Thank you for the “source” link in your post and also for writing an interesting essay.
Thank you, Deborah. And thanks for dropping by.