1 of 3

When I was a kid, a spring scale stood in every airport and railroad station waiting room. Two coin slots—penny and nickel or nickel and dime—invited the traveler to learn his weight or, for a fee, his "Wate and Fate." I didn't trust machines or prophets even then, so I never tempted fate and tried the larger coin. Even now, I wonder if fatter people got different fortunes from those light on the scales. More than likely the scales were, like a fortune cookie, blind to the reader.

Because he can only be in one place at one time, and because his works if not himself have to inspire some kind of love, an author can ill afford to be blind to the other.

And what is an author? In the minds of many he is a romantic figure, inspiring envy. An actor/director told me that writers were lucky, because all they needed to work was a pencil and paper. He later struck gold writing parodies of mail-order catalogues. For other people, authors are fortunate because they don't have bosses, because they are doing what they want to do, because they get to hang around the house, because they set their own schedule. The literary life is blessed with whatever you can imagine as someone else's freedom.

Success does not mean that the writer is at one with self and career. It's hard to say just what a successful poet would be, although it is easy to figure out why poets aren't happy once their youth is spent. They've got to wonder what it all was for, when for everyone else the answer is easy: money. After helping John Ashbery home from a party for Harold Brodkey several years back, Robert Atwan told me, "It's no fun being the poet at the novelists' party." Unlike novelists, poets (at least in this century) are always out of office. Poetry has no place or natural occasion in public discourse except the poetry reading, the prize ceremony, the inaugural. The late Meyer Schapiro once remarked that uselessness was poetry's greatest strength, because it could only be done for God.

Why a prosperous novelist would turn to poetry is a harder question. Maybe it's bravado, the "I can do anything" state of mind. But how much pleasure can be taken when those poems made it into print only because they were paid for in advance, with prose? How else to explain John Updike's poems, for example, which have all the polish and none of the urgency of his larger fictions. They exist by grace of his stories and essays. Tom Disch is nowhere near as famous as Updike but easier to account for. His formal verse is an instrument of literary criticism and public discourse that exceeds most critical prose in sensibility and delight. Paul Auster turned out several volumes of hermetic poems in the French manner, but that was before he wrote his celebrated mysteries. Ford Madox Ford composed poems;

so did Herman Melville. G. K. Chesterton penned religious verse. D. H. Lawrence's Big Bertha volume of collected poetry is pretty good, but it rides on top of Lady Chatterly's Lover.

Kenneth Koch once told a class of undergraduates at Columbia University that the difference between prose and poetry was like the difference betwen men and women: if you couldn't tell, then it didn't matter. Novelists have larger egos than poets, who have to contend with the fact that they are an embarrassment and reproach to most everybody. Where novelists under contract produce hundreds of thousands of words, poets work against what Marianne Moore called their natural reticence. A long poem is 1,000 lines. A long novel, 1,000 pages.

There's a moment in The Armies of the Night when Norman Mailer catches sight of Robert Lowell. He pays Lowell homage as poet, which, on Mailer's literary scale, is higher than a writer of prose. Novelists may be Promethean, but they still would like to steal the gods', the poets' fire. Prose is a strategy, poetry is a position. Established novelists who write poetry are like movie stars who really want to direct. Like mafiosi making large gifts to the church, they seek an esteem without price.

next page... |  1 of 3

share this page