Politics by Parable: Denise Levertov and the Gulf War

By Goldstein, Laurence | TriQuarterly, Fall-Winter 2009 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Politics by Parable: Denise Levertov and the Gulf War


Goldstein, Laurence, TriQuarterly


Denise Levertov has the reputation of being a didactic poet who wrote angrily and often about the "leaden burden of human evil" endured by people of good will in the modern era. (1) Her poems denouncing the Vietnam War are justly famous and controversial. Those who read them as they appeared in the late 1960s, and I am one, and heard the poet declaim them in her ceaseless round of visits to college campuses and public venues, can testify to their clarion effects. Readers and listeners were roused to activism by the felt passion of such poems. Their deliberate rejection of standards of decorum mandating temperance and disinterestedness struck readers then as a subversion as bracing as the brazen confessionalism of Sylvia Plath's Ariel or the impudent neo-Dadaism of John Ashbery's The Tennis Court Oath. Young writers who had been drilled repeatedly in creative writing workshops on the modernist gospel--to use Western Union if they wished to send a message--embraced the breakdown of the taboo against vehement and partisan rhetoric. Just as paperbacks like Poems of Protest Old and New (1968) and Where is Vietnam: American Poets Respond (1967) became talismans for the counterculture, so Levertov's The Sorrow Dance, Relearning the Alphabet, and To Stay Alive fell onto one's bedside table and into one's heart, cohabiting with Joseph Heller's Catch-22, James Baldwin's The Fire Next Time, and Norman Mailer's Armies of the Night. They became an essential part of the Zeitgeist, of what we summon when we refer to "The Sixties."

Though it did not matter during the furious years of the war whether the poems were fashioned for posterity, it came to matter a great deal after the war. The backlash came as no surprise, and no doubt some advocates of Levertov's protest poems half welcomed the spirited defense of the status quo ante in matters of taste. Robert von Hallberg, quoting a section of Levertov's poem "Part I (October '68--May '69)," wrote in 1985 that "These lines (a shame to quote them, really) are the nadir of political poetry of the later 1960s.... This is what choosing sides can come to for poets: a sentimental simplification of history." (2) Paul Breslin complained in 1987 of Levertov's "programmatically lurid" imagery pressed into service without judicious consideration of both sides of the political equation: "Levertov's argument ... leaves the motives of the Vietnamese themselves entirely out of account.... To function historically, the imagination must include analytical intelligence." (3) A concerted effort to rescue the prestige of poetry from the hortatory sermonizing of (some) poems by Levertov, Adrienne Rich, Robert Bly, Allen Ginsberg, and less famous poets became a revisionist wave informing the discourse of critics in almost every literary journal.

Levertov did not change her poetics to suit her critics, not for a while. By and large, she continued to believe that "There is no reason why a poetry of political and social engagement can't be as good as any other poetry." (4) She argued that the poet was obligated, at least intermittently, to make immediate and compelling contact with a large mass of readers and to move them to action by her rhetoric, including her rhetoric of protest, no less than an orator like Martin Luther King, Jr. Just as sequences like "Life at War," "Elegies," and "Staying Alive" did choose sides, Hanoi against Washington, so later poems like "El Salvador: Requiem and Invocation," "Protesting at the Nuclear Test Site," and "Alienation in Silicon Valley" persisted in condemning American social and political abuses in the most emphatic way. Even readers who felt uneasy about the free-swinging, in-your-face language of such poems nevertheless had to acknowledge that Levertov had a point. Is choosing sides really the issue in our evaluation of a poem's value? Do we blame Milton for choosing sides in his sonnet of fierce partisanship, "On the Late Massacre in Piedmont," or Wordsworth in his anti-Napoleon sonnets, or Wilfred Owen in his denunciations of the facile patriotism of the home front?

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Politics by Parable: Denise Levertov and the Gulf War
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?