In one of the oddest moments of 21st century history, the German Government has strongly laid claim to total responsibility for The Shoah (the Holocaust) as a rupture in human civilisation and argued it must continue to teach and defend this historical reading of German guilt. The gut-wrenching irony which is almost beyond my ability to comprehend is that the denial of this official history was presented by the leader of the Jewish state of Israel. Germany it seems is laying claim to its modern existential identity as the post-Holocaust nation as guardian of both guilt and solemn reparation. Whereas for Netanyahu the Holocaust seems to be a more free-floating thing capable of new definitions and even origins. For him the victims remain undeniably the same but the causation can be shifted without existential damage to Israel because in this new foundation story of the Holocaust the chief villain is not a slain ghost like Hitlerism but the current foe - Palestinism. Fascinating and worrying.
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