Paul Brent print
Watermarks



Elizabeth Bishop: The Reticent Artist

by Jamie Danford

An English professor once told me that poetry, by its nature, is something to be wrestled with. It is an art that allows its audience to reach independent conclusions, words that through their spirit evoke thought and emotion. Poems do not have to be easy to be good. They are challenges, tide pools of thought. A glance at the surface will provide reflections, but a search into the depths offers a rewarding richness and sense of understanding. Poetry like this seems invaluable, yet it draws criticism from readers who cannot see past the surface. One author in particular who has been criticized for her deep and unaccommodating style is Elizabeth Bishop. This criticism can be attributed to her reticent nature, an attitude of keeping people at a distance in order to protect her privacy. Most critics argue that Elizabeth Bishop's reticence makes her poetry significant, while others have serious doubts about her worth as a major American poet. This essay will examine the debate over Elizabeth Bishop's reticent style, including individual criticism and argue that while some critics may try to dismiss her as merely a good poet of description, most hold her up as a model of poetic excellence.
Elizabeth Bishop followed her own rhythm. She would not open herself to the analysis of critics and would not change her oblique style of writing to make anyone else happy. While poets like Robert Lowell and John Berryman floated experiments with different styles, Bishop held true to her own way of writing. Her poetry's descriptiveness resembles the nature poets at times, yet is so well rounded that placing it in any one category proves difficult. She had the eye of an artist, which enabled her to envision scenes with incredible detail and precision. Yet this talent for capturing the vivid realities of daily life made some people overlook her depth as a poet. Critics such as A. Alvarez, James Breslin and Joseph Epstein seem only to have seen Bishop's gift of description, missing her excellence as an artist of thought and emotion.
Bishop's poetry has been accused of being indirect, evasive and lacking sufficient moral strength. James Dickey went so far as to call her poetry "off-hand", as if she simply threw a list of descriptions down on paper and decided to publish it. She presented scenes through her poems, but refused to reveal their significance. A. Alvarez deplores this style of writing. He says, "Reading [Elizabeth Bishop's] poems is like listening to highly imaginative bedtime stories and hearing everything but the plot; it is touching, disquieting, but queerly inconclusive" (Shetley, 36). This opinion represents what some people first thought of Bishop's writing. Fellow poet, Adrieme Rich said Bishop's poems were "impenetrable: intellectualized to the point of obliquity..." (Shetley, 34). Critics thought her poetry could tell a good tale, or give an accurate description, but lacked thematic substance. This difficulty turned off some of Bishop's early readers.
When she died, Elizabeth Bishop's title as an American poet was defined as "minor," probably due to the difficulty of her unaccommodating style. As late as 1984, critics were dismissing her in reviews and surveys such as James E. B. Breslin's From Modern to Contemporary. Mr. Breslin dismissed Bishop by including only a short description of her, stating that she followed the path of many other "hard working middle generation poets" (Travisano, 904). He went on to say she was "isolated" causing her poetry to be rejected by critics. The isolation that Mr. Breslin talks about probably refers to the years Bishop spent in Brazil and the fact that her severe asthma and alcoholism kept her out of the public eye. Mr. Breslin seems to attribute the distance and difficulty of Bishop's style to the physical distance she put between herself and the American way of life. It is hard to believe that someone could write a book about American poetry and decide that Elizabeth Bishop is not worth more than a few lines of attention, but this is indeed the case in Mr. Breslin's From Modern to Contemporary.
More negative criticism of Bishop's poetry comes from Joseph Epstein's 1995 article, "Elizabeth Bishop: Never A Bridesmaid," in The Hudson Review. He gives Bishop credit for being the author of many "good, nice, really quite swell poems", but says, "they just cannot carry the weight of critical significance assigned to them' (52). He claims that "behind these often cool and well-made verbal contraptions, villanelles, sestinas, and the rest, lie the themes of dispossession, loss, withdrawal, remorse, isolation, consolation sought but never found--more sadness, really, than any human being should have been asked to bear" (42). This profound sadness worked against Bishop's ability to produce great poetry, says Mr. Epstein, and it blocked the "larger vision" necessary to be a writer of "major literature" (52). He claims that a large number of her poems are "mechanically sound and well-made," but do not "ignite" (5 1). Mr. Epstein praises her vivid descriptions and agrees that the details are important, but argues that her poetry depends too much on these details and not enough on her poetic vision:
This remark seems very harsh. Epstein basically gives Bishop a pat on the head and tells her to make way for what he considers the "great" poets. This serves as another good example of the negative criticism her work has had to endure.
The difficulty of Bishop's reticent style will not go away. In the 1992, article, "The Closet Of Breath: Elizabeth Bishop, Her Body And Her Art" in Twentieth Century Literature, Marilyn May Lombardi discusses this problem:
Ms. Lombardi enthusiastically supports Bishop's poetry. However, she recognizes the difficulty readers may have with Bishop's style, especially in an age that has witnessed the verbal stripteases of the confessional poets. Her article shows that Bishop's reticence actually enhances the quality of her poetry by constructing a subtle, but complex relationship with her audience.
Ms. Lombardi's article discusses Elizabeth Bishop's use of the equivocal nature of language as a potent artistic tool. Bishop links herself to her audience through her use of "a common language--a language that is never straightforward in its effects" (163). She embraced the idea that language is "open to two or more possibilities, always hiding something in the process of revealing everything" (I 63). In other words, as Bonnie Costello wrote in her book, Elizabeth Bishop, "Questions and poses of impersonality make for disorientation, which is in turn her means toward discovery" (213). By taking her readers through a journey of language Bishop's poetry delivers a powerful experience. Her readers must dive through the surface and swim into the depths of her poems. There they can ind meaning for themselves. "The moments of apparent personal connection between the poet and her reader are immeasurably enriched by the understanding they share that they each must finally remain an irresolvable mystery to the other" (163).
Bishop's reticent style further enriches her poetry through the things she does not say argues critic Joanne Diehl. Writing on the subject of feminism in literature, Ms. Diehl "warns us that Bishop's poetry 'only apparently evades issues of sexuality and gender.' [She] senses an 'ominous quality to Bishop's restraint more suggestive than confession"' (LombardL 172). Her use of imagery allowed Bishop to address personal issues in her poems without the discomfort of self-exposure. An example of this is found in the poem "In The Waiting Room." Lois Cucullu says it best when she writes, "What is not said about the child hovers at the periphery of the poem--why no other family members are mentioned; why Elizabeth accompanies her aunt--creating a tension that is never resolved. The lack of information intensifies the child's isolation, making her all the more vulnerable in the reader's mind" (Shetley, 52). The intentional omission of these details urges the reader to attempt a greater understanding of the girl's situation. The reader begins to question what is happening in the poem, just like the child who starts to question her place in the world. If Bishop spells everything out for the reader, it may not be as mysterious. It may not even provoke enough interest to get a second reading.
The depth and evasiveness of Bishop's literary style work together to attract literary treasure hunters. These readers enjoy searching through the layers of her poetry to find more than just descriptions. In his 1996, article "Elizabeth Bishop And Revision: A Spiritual Act," in American Poetry Review, Charles Edward Niann discusses Bishop's subtle complexity. He suggests, her "simplicity belies a greater depth beneath" (Mann, 43), and her tone creates extraord4wy meaning out of the seemingly ordinary. In her book, Elizabeth Bishop's Poetics Of Intimacy, Victoria Harrison writes, "Whether [Bishop] writes about people riding a bus together, one woman shampooing another's hair, or land and water finding each other, her poetry inevitably listens to the voices of layered and changeable subjectivities, so as to explore their daily and profound connections" (I 1). Familial bonds, the relationship between humankind and the universe and finding one's inner self are examples of her poetic explorations. Most critics agree it is in these connections where Miss Bishop's poetry excels. Her poems do not come out and tell the readers how to get to the treasure; they simply provide all the tools necessary to find it.
Elizabeth Bishop's poems include the personal details of her life: her father's death, her mother's insanity, her own alcoholism, but they are buried deep under layers of intense description. This unwillingness to show her own dirty laundry made her much different from other poets of her time. Critics liked her disguises and said she was "refreshing" (Harrison, I 1) in a time when the confessional poets were gaining popularity. Bonnie Costello commented in her book that the modesty of her poetry attracted anti-confessionals with a combination of reticence and craft. Miss Bishop disagreed with the confessional poets' style. "Essentially she objected to the confessional poetry of her peers because its authors 'boasted' about their private catastrophes so shamelessly, and congratulated themselves so continually on their candor" (Lombardi 162). Lombardi goes on to say, "The key to Bishop's poetic style, its minimalism, deflection, and hard-won moral vision lies in her battle to rid her work of the excessive 'morbidity' [found in the poetry of Sexton and Plath]" (162). This refusal to pursue a confessional style of poetry gained Miss Bishop much respect. In a personal letter to her, Robert Lowell wrote, "You are the only poet now who calls her own tune..." (Harrison, 2). This courage to follow her own style allowed Bishop to express her ideas without compromising her own poetic morals.
"Whether or not she could articulate it, Bishop's simplicity gave her access to the surprising; in her scrupulous focus on the surface, she peeled the human layers that made it up" (Harrison, 265). She "invested her profound emotion and personal struggle deep in the objects and places which serve as images in her poems" (Miller, 62). Her precise, yet reticent style allows readers to experience what she saw and thought in her lifetime without drawing moral answers for anyone but herself. By giving her readers such descriptive visions of the ordinariness of life, Bishop showed its meaningfulness, leaving as her legacy an expansive poetic experience.
"From the moment of her death it seems that [Bishop's] reputation has continually ascended," says John Malcom Brinnin (Travisano, 904). Recent criticism has brought to light the well-rounded richness of Bishop's work. It is this newer criticism that excites me about her poetry. The first time I stumbled through "The Moose," "Man-Moth" and "In The Waiting Room" I found myself puzzled by this writer. After each poem, I had to sit back and absorb what I had just read. The poems were easy to read in fact, I thought, too easy. I began to reread the poems and each time found another facet to explore. Suddenly, these were not simple poems about a moose ambling out of the woods, or a child reading National Geographic. These poems are about life and the connection people have with each other, nature, and themselves. Each image tells a story, while holding back just enough to make me question shy she chose to use it. Little did I know that I was beginning to sound like an Elizabeth Bishop critic!
I agree with Ms. Lombardi's argument that Bishop's reticence enhances the quality of her poetry through the relationship she forms with her readers. Moments of understanding are all the more meaningful because the reader knows they will not last. Reading her poems, I can see her use of equivocal language, experiencing firsthand, the process by which she hides information while revealing it at the same time. A fish's scales resembling a pattern of brown roses conveys a sense of the passing of time like faded wallpaper in an antique sitting room and her carefully chosen words in "One Art" try to mask the uncertainty and sadness of her losses. Her poems make me ask questions and wonder what she was trying to say, and her reluctance to draw conclusions or moralize allows me to come to my own discoveries, thus earning my respect. The connection I feel with Bishop when reading her poetry is what Ms. Lombardi discusses in her article and why I agree with her argument.
Just as Bishop's evasiveness leads the reader to think about the missing elements in her poems, her restraint sets up a questioning tone. I agree with Joanne Diehl's argument that Bishop says more through her self-restraint than the confessional poets could with their openness. Poets like Plath and Sexton certainly spoke their minds, and included many shocking images in their poetry, but Bishop may have said more through her lack thereof 13y cutting off her explanations and restricting herself to the most restrained images, Bishop shows the suppression and sorrow with which she lived. Her life was full of secrets and sadness, from her alcoholism to the death of her true love, Lota de Macedo Soares. It is "only after Bishop's death, however, [that] critics [have] been free to reread [her] poetry in ways that highlight its experience of 'deformity,' 'existential loneliness,' and 'epistemological murk or vacancy"' (Shetley, 33). She never revealed her sorrows to the public, hiding them in the images of her poems. Her suppressed tone captures readers' attention, while hinting at a wealth of hidden meaning flowing beneath the surface.
Now that I can appreciate Miss Bishop's reticent style and understand that it masks a great deal of suppressed meaning, I cannot agree with A. Alvarez's opinion that Miss Bishop's poems are plotless. I understand that he may feel this way after an initial reading, but an in-depth study demonstrates the thematic fortitude of her poetry. Certainly her poems may leave a "queerly inconclusive" (Shetley, 36) taste in the mouth of a reader, but only because she does not try to draw conclusions for anyone but herself.
The majority of the images incorporated into Bishop's poems come from the incredible details of everyday life. It is this great gift of seeing the world through the eyes of an artful observer that makes her poems so rich. Yet, critic Joseph Epstein argues that her poetry lacks vision. I must disagree with Mr. Epstein because I think Bishop's poetry is full of a precise and uncompromised vision. Through details like the black wave that threatens to drown Elizabeth in "In The Waiting Room" the pain-filled drops of water that fall into speaker's eyes in "The Weed", Bishop demonstrates the realities of life without having to spell them out for her readers. It seems that Mr. Epstein expects more from her poetry than necessary. If her style were any different, less reticent or evasive, she would have faded in with the rest of the poets of her generation.
By examining the negative criticism and comparing it to the positive, I have come to the conclusion that Bishop is definitely worthy of major poet status. Her reticent style gives her poetry a profound depth. Through the use of images and descriptions she constructed intricate surfaces, and her restricted tone stirs in the reader an urge to search deeper. Once the obliquity of the surwe is broken, readers can find endless depths of emotion. It is Bishop's individuality, her courage to stay apart from the status quo that attracted me to her poetry. She gained the respect of her contemporaries in her time, and now it seems that her popularity is skyrocketing. She is responsible for a generation of poets who try to emulate her reticent style, and I am sure that her poetry is finally getting the honor it has deserved for so long.



PreviousPrevious essay
Home Table of Contents
Next Next essay