California State University, Northridge Quest For
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE QUEST FOR PLACE THE POETRY OF GARY SNYDER AND WENDELL BERRY A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English by Patrick Dennis Murphy May, 1983 The Thesis of Patrick Dennis Murphy is approved: William Walsh Loilisoweris Benjamin Saltman, Committee Chairman . California State University, Northridge ii For Izumichan who encouraged me to return to school. Ojisan iii Table of Contents Abstract v Chapter One: Introduction 1 Chapter Two: Convergence 7 Chapter Three: Placing Han 14 Chapter Four: Placing Spirituality 35 Chapter Five: Man and Spirituality in Place 50 Chapter Six: Conclusion 77 Key to Abbreviations in the Text 87 Notes 88 Bibliography 97 Appendix A: "Bubbs Creek Haircut" 103 Appendix B: "Clearing," "From The Crest," and "Reverdure" 108 iv ABSTRACT QUEST FOR PLACE THE POETRY OF GARY SNYDER AND WENDELL BERRY by Patrick Dennis Murphy Master of Arts in English Gary Snyder and Wendell Berry are often grouped together as ecological poets due to common themes evident in their poetry. A certain convergence of lifestyles and con cerns provides a basis for comparing the two, but as the comparison proceeds it soon becomes evident that Snyder and Berry diverge more than they converge. The first two sections of this essay discuss the basis for comparison and the areas of convergence. Also, the first section opens with a polemical consideration of current criticism on both poets. The next two sections focus first on the conflicting I concepts of place held by Snyder and Berry and their oppos- ing views on man's proper relationship to the land, and, second, on their conflicting spiritual beliefs which funda mentally affect their views on that relationship. Snyder seeks a return to a primitivist inhabitation of wilderness with a spirituality based on a combination of Buddhist, American Indian, and shamanist beliefs arl.d traditions, while Berry seeks a return to a society based on nature-harmonious v p ' agriculture sustained by an ecologically oriented spiritual ity based on tenets of the Judaeo-Christian religious tradition. A close reading of poems from both poets follows, serving to exemplify the presence of these beliefs in their work. Finally, the concluding remarks briefly discuss each poet's attitude toward the efficacy of poetry in bringing about change, further areas for critical study, and the contribution of this essay's thesis to future criticism. vi When the Tao is present in the universe, The horses haul manure. When the Tao is absent from the universe, War horses are bred outside the city. (Tao Te Ching, forty-six) vii Introduction I learned that it is land, plac~~ that makes people provides for the~ the.pdssibilities they will have of becoming something more than mere lumps of sucking matter. We today who live so much from the inheritance of land and culture do not understand this as well as we need to. Few of us these days are really residents anywhere, in the deep sense of that term. We live off the sur face of things and places, the culture as well as the land; ours is a derivative life: we take what we find without thought, without regard for origin or consequences, both natural and cultural as fast diminishing.l (John Haines) To be a resident, in John Haines' sense, is to estab lish oneself in place with the land, with the world. Gary Snyder and Wendell Berry have sought to become residents in that sense. They have summed up, discussed, presented that seeking in their poetry. They are two poets who share Haines' recognition of the importance of the land, who would argue that man realizes himself through acceptance of his limited, temporal role upon the planet, through integration in the natural processes of the world which move before and beyond him. Unfortunately, many critics of Snyder and Berry have continued in the "derivative life," choosing only to consid er the surface of things. Much has been written on Snyder, but not much on Berry, and in both cases much has missed the mark. A few critics approach Snyder carefully and meticu lously, having a sense of his philosophical depth--Bob Steu- 1 2 ~ing and Bert Almon to name two.2 Many others demonstrate serious interpretive weaknesses, taking two basic forms: some critics fail to include a crucial philosophical compon ent, and some approach Snyder with a variety of reductionist schemata. Donald Tarbet exemplifies the first category by omit ting any reference to Snyder's fundamental grounding in Zen Buddhism. Without considering Snyder's adherence to Zen, Tarbet fails to understand the anti-Christian, nonlapsarian 3 content of "Milton by Firelight." Thomas Parkinson, who considers Snyder to be creating a "new culture," misrepre sents Snyder's characterization of man's interrelatedness with nat~re by describing it in egocentric terms. Parkin son's error reflects a failure to sufficiently analyze the Buddhist and Amerindian beliefs in Snyder's ethos, particu 4 larly in relation to property and self-interest. And Lee Bartlett in a very recent essay commits errors of both omis sion and reductionism. He omits Robert Graves' influence, Snyder's acquaintance with Campbell's Jungian archetypal theory, and Snyder's emphasis on goddesses in his mythopo eia. He also practices reductionism, placing Snyder in an essentially classical, Western tradition of Apollonian/Dio nysian dualism through lumping Zen and Amerindian spiritual 5 quests in with the tradition of the Romantic quest. William Everson introduces a reductionist "Western 6 archetype" into Snyder criticism. He claims that Snyder's studies in Japan represent a continuation of the western American lite~ary tradition rather than a rejection of the classical Judaeo-Christian tradition upon which most Ameri can literature is based. He further misrepresents Snyder's northwestern American influence by excluding the Amerindian heritage from the archetype that Snyder allegedly epito mizes. Finally, Charles Altieri omits Snyder's concern for ~nd emulation of shamanism to set up a contradiction be 7 'tween the poet as seer and as prophet in Turtle Island. He argues that Sn~der should remain a seer because.he dis- 3 !fikes the "ideological resonance" of some of the Turtle Is land poems. His claim that the poem, "Front Lines," fails because the issues "are questions of degree and of reconcil ing interests; ... not absolute issues requiring unyielding defense of one's principles" reflects ideological disagree 8 ment rather than literary criticism. Many of the critical errors made in analyzing Snyder are difficult to recognize when read in isolation from other criticism. One way to clarify such misinterpretations is to set Snyder's work alongside Berry's,_ to compare the content of two poets who apparently and at least superficially share similar preoccupations. Careful explication reveals that Snyder and Berry differ from each other far more than they parallel one another. As one begins to dig more deeply into Snyder's poetry, into the philosophy underlying it, and into the critical statements about it, appreciation of Snyder's complexity deepens and recognition of shortcomings in Snyder criticism increases. On the other hand, as one seeks to use Berry for such a comparison, his poetry and essays reveal problems in the unity of his world view, which current Berry criticism fails to understand. Berry's critics, even Robert Hass and Speer Morgan who make serious efforts, generally fail to penetr~te deeply into his work to adequately defend it or to successfully c~iticize it. 9 Too often criticism of Berry becomes either an appreciation or a condemnation of the way he writes. For 10 example, Dick Allen comments on The Country of Marriage "poems which are endangered by sentimentality, but escape i ·I into wisdom." He praises Berry because he is "our primary contemporary poet of clarity}' And, Edwin Fussell attacks 11 Berry on the basis that "he is mainly genre." Several critics in the early 1970s argued that Berry had exhausted his subjects of nature, family, and farm and would have to turn to new topics to continue writing. John Ditsky and Kenneth Fields are two representatives of this group with Fields going another step fn the wrong direction 4 by trying to separate Berry's poetry into a "private" voice and a "public" one, thereby ignoring Berry's efforts to uni fy the aspects of his life by focusing on the land of his 12 heritage. And Frederick Waage, in an otherwise interest ing effort, makes two serious errors in his analysis: one, that Berry has achieved a sense of a "type of non-linear history," which contradicts Berry's concern for atonement; two, his claim that Berry is moving toward the idea that the farm can merely be a form of consciousness, which denies the epistemological relationship that Berry has established be tween man's environment and his consciousness. 13 Why compare Snyder and Berry, rather than treat them separately? First, a number of critics have already made comparisons, though usually in passing and almost always re ferring to Snyder while discussing Berry, measuring Berry against Snyder. But then, that is understandable~ fo~ Snyder's reputation was firmly established before Berry's first book of poetry appeared. Only a few critics have corn pared them with equal emphasis and at least one of these, Donald Tarbet, misrepresented Berry and rendered Snyder uni dentifiable. Second, they tend to be grouped in people's minds as !'ecology poets," or as Berry terms it, "nature poets.'' This reflects a certain commonality of concern and interest, as well as style, and provides a starting point for analyzing their poetry, whethere separately or compara tively.