The news that American researchers, in the 1940s, infected the mentally ill and confined in Guatemala with syphilis (that was later treated though not necessarily cured) demanded a high-level apology, such as Clinton and Obama have since proffered. So far so good - except very troubling thoughts linger: how, after the atrocities of Nazi and Japanese WW2 medical research, could Americans involve themselves in such cold-blooded work? More to the point, does such untrammeled science still operate? Whenever scientists like Dawkins wax lyrical about the pure rational spirit of the scientist, it is right to recall such crimes against humanity; for science, unmoored from morality, even (say it!) faith, can grow monstrous very easily; for the human mind's forensic curiosity, still in its moral infancy, will pull wings from a fly to see it struggle. And call that knowledge.
When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart? A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional. Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were. For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ? Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets. But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ? How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular. John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se. What do I mean by smart?
Comments