• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

Monday’s Poems: ‘Hearsay’ and ‘First Frost on Windshield,’ by L.S. Klatt

November 11, 2011, 10:09 am

HEARSAY

The mailman sent piecemeal a rare donkey
to the city of waters; to the city of waters
a rare donkey was sent, swaddled
in blueprint.

And it came to pass that the waters
were troubled. Woe
in the great city.

Nothing is more beautiful than to admit
the truth, or more difficult.

The head & tail & all that is in between.

When piecemeal the beast was sent,
the engineers knew their place.

For if disassembled like a boat
the rare donkey could be
put together.

But to separate the members of a living
thing, to cast dispersions on it,
this is to create a question
unanswerable.

 

 

FIRST FROST ON WINDSHIELD

Perfect stitches suture the glass, & if patient enough
watch them disappear.

Like the dead dog in the middle of the road, the invisible
dog that an ice cream truck hit & the rest of us
skirted. Was the last thing tasted
the last thing?

It whimpers, the muzzle of the dog head; the hackles
become rimed with diamante. I say:
here are lucent things.

When frost arrives, it has the soul of famine,
but also catatonic the headlights as the crow flies.

 

© by L. S. Klatt.  Printed by permission of the author.

 

L. S. Klatt teaches creative writing and American literature at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Recent poems of his have apppeared or will appear in Boston Review, The Believer, West Branch, Sycamore Review, and Best American Poetry 2011. His latest collection, Cloud of Ink, won the Iowa Poetry Prize and was published by the University of Iowa Press in 2011.

 

Notes from The Chronicle Review’s Poetry Editor Lisa Russ Spaar, of the University of Virginia:

What Helen Vendler called, in relation to John Keats and Wallace Stevens, “the taming of mind to the season,” is something poets often do, and November—the tail end of autumn, the harbinger of winter—has a particular way of taking ahold of and a hold in poets.  Merwin called November a “debt.”  Plath considered it her “property” (“Two times a day / I pace it, sniffing / The barbarous holly with its viridian / Scallops, pure iron, // And the wall of old corpses”).  Stevens named it a region (“It is like a critic of God, the world // And human nature, pensively seated / On the waste throne of his own wilderness” from “The Region November”), Williams a design:

Let confusion be the design
and all my thoughts go,
swallowed by desire: recess
from promises in
the November of your arms.
Release from the rose: broken
reeds, strawpale,
through which, from easy
branches that mock the blood
a few leaves fall. There
the mind is cradled,
stripped also and returned
to the ground, a trivial
and momentary clatter. Sleep
and be brought down, and so
condone the world, eased of
the jagged sky and all
its petty imageries, flying
birds, its fogs and windy
phalanxes . . .

(from “Design for November”)

Though not specifically about November, two recent poems by L.S. Klatt, in their different ways, seem to grow out of what Stevens has elsewhere called the “exhilaration of changes.”  “Hearsay” (which in its fabular imaginings, disturbed logic, and philosophical figuration reminds me very much of Stevens and his notion of “the malady of the quotidian”) possesses what the poet and critic Ron Slate called Klatt’s “domesticated wildness.” It relays a tale that feels like a parable, mixing ordinary details (the mailman, the engineers) with Biblical syntax (“And it came to pass”) and a cryptic, aphorisitic, philosophically charged sense of mastery/mystery (“Nothing is more beautiful than to admit / the truth, or more difficult”).  It’s clear that Klatt means us to read his poem as more than just “hearsay.” Everything about the poem is charged with symbolic resonance.  Perhaps we’re meant to read the poem as a definition of “Hearsay” or rumor, and to feel the consequences of what happens when something rare is taken apart and disseminated and then partially or inaccurately reassembled in a way that is dissembling and “unanswerable.”

It is hard for me not to read “Hearsay” as a political poem, a comment on what can happen to something, say, like the democratic party (with its donkey mascot) if, “piecemeal,”  it is sent in shards (“The head & tail & all that is in between”) to “the great city.”  The poem gives us much to contemplate in this month of election and at the start of the upcoming presidential election year.  When the donkey was in pieces, the speaker tells us, “the engineers knew their place. // For if disassembled like a boat / the rare donkey could be / put together.” There are clear echoes here of another provocatively riddling poem, “Humpty Dumpty,” which can be read, on the one hand, nonsensically, but which also suggests political interpretations, as well.  What happens, Klatt’s poem warns, when “the members of a living / thing” are separated and cast with dispersions?  Can such a broken body ever be reassembled? Restored to meaning? Is there an answer to such a riddle?

If “Hearsay” seems a nod to the “region November” of the body politic, “First Frost on the Windshield” is more forthright in its engagement with the changing season.  But there is nothing immediately transparent about this poem, which, like “Hearsay,” is concerned with things (like a country, a body, a year) that are broken and must be “sutured,” reassembled in the mind of the reader.  With characteristic word-play (the way “patient,” for example, works with a kind of implied imperative—“If you are patient enough you can watch the stitches of frost disappear”—as well as evokes the body of a patient requiring repair),  rhetorical elision,  and disjunction, Klatt moves with an undiscursive, figurative forcefulness from his initial image of a frosted windowglass to what Harold Bloom, again in relation to Stevens (and Dickinson), calls an antithetical image “that disrupt[s] the realm of bodily eye”:

Like the dead dog in the middle of the road, the invisible
dog that an ice cream truck hit & the rest of us
skirted. Was the last thing tasted
the last thing?

A “dead dog”? What? And not one most likely struck, say, yesterday, but a while back, in the season of ice cream trucks. And an invisible dog, a dog no one saw. And a dog which, perhaps because “skirted,” continues to haunt, whimpering still (not the whole dog, mind you, but just its muzzle, part of its head)? Through the lenses of memory, guilt, and remorse, the hackles of the dog, the speaker says, “become rimed with diamante,” with the first frost of conscience, the consciousness of cowardice, of avoidance, of avoidance of death. Klatt concludes his lyric, again, with a vatic, aphoristic statement that, with its elided, unstable syntax, is not entirely decipherable, at least not through dialectic or ordinary logic or syllogism:

I say:
here are lucent things.

When frost arrives, it has the soul of famine,
but also catatonic the headlights as the crow flies.

 

This kind of language has an almost nonsensical feel on first reading, but if we allow its juxtaposed figures (“[frost] has the soul of famine”) and idiomatic phrases (“as the crow flies”) to conflate (the experience of doing so is akin to looking at Magic Eye®  images), we emerge from the poem with a new sense of the interconnectedness of the fierce, implacable motions of the natural world, the seasons, and the human capacity either to be numb or alive to these truths.  “Surprise,” Bloom writes, “is the American poetic stance.” Just as November surprises us, with its inklings, frosts, shearings, and beheaded blooms, Klatt’s poems startle us with their imaginative negative capabilities,  their choice of lucent vision over any form of personal, political, or artistic numbness.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • periniuf

    One post noted that the physics of global warming are well proven over the past 100 years, the inference being that the global warming processes and conclusions therefrom are inarguable.  Inconveniently, NASA has reported its 2000-2011 tempurature results and a paper is in the Journal “Remote Sensing” http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf  Unfortunately, the climate models have missed the boat about the importance of CO2 and of course that is the main leg of the anthropormorphic warming theory.

  • http://twitter.com/AGW_Prof Scott A Mandia

    It was not NASA.  NASA data was used.

    Read the paper.  It shows no such conclusions and Spencer’s simple model did not include the effect of El Ninos and La Ninas for determining model accuracy and also only used ten years of data.  Ten years cannot be used to show climate sensitivity and Spencer should know that ten years is not enough to lift the climate signal from the weather noise.  Surprised he does not know that.  My freshman non-science majors even get this point.

    Forbes and Fox were very good at hyping the story even though it was clear the sound bites were not supported by the actual results of the paper.

  • ztztzt

    Bradley copied large portions of his ‘classic’ from a text book by Fritts, from 1971!  see:
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/20/bradley-copies-fritts-2/
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/18/bradley-copies-fritts/
    (Bradley’s minor contribution being to suppress knowledge of CO2 affecting growth, in order to focus on temperature as the cause of tree ring width variation – increasing the alarmist narrative)

  • megginson

    “[T]he injection of politics and an almost religious fervor by those on both sides of this issue leads to very bad science.” Well said, and absolutely right. But concerning computer models, one might consider some criticisms of them by an unlikely source, and the source’s further comments on why his criticism is valid but not relevant to a discussion of the proposition that anthropogenic climate change is happening and is dangerous:

    “Thirty years [after Jule Charney used climate models to estimate climate sensitivity for doubled CO2 and could only state that it is probably between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius], models alone still cannot do much better. Here is another killer: Even as our understanding of some feedbacks improves, we don’t know what we don’t know—there may be other feedbacks. Climate sensitivity will never be defined accurately by models.”

    The author of the remarks, and some related ones in the same publication about the danger of reliance on models in this arena, is not Richard Lindzen or Fred Singer. It’s James Hansen, and the quote above is taken from p. 44 of his book “Storms of My Grandchildren”.

    The very next sentence is, “Fortunately, Earth’s history allows precise evaluation of climate sensitivity without using climate models.” Hansen’s point, also made in other places in the book, is that beating up on climate models to try to discredit anthropogenic climate change is a straw man argument. Without ever running a computer model, we can get a good idea of how much trouble we are in with the CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere just by looking at Earth’s history as shown in paleoclimate data, by knowledge of simple physical properties of greenhouse gases that have been understood for well over a century, and by noting the observational fact that we are dumping a bunch of one of those gases into the atmosphere and the temperature is rising in a pattern that agrees pretty well with theoretical predictions. (Physicist and science historian Spencer Weart’s famous quote is relevant here: “The physics of the greenhouse effect is so basic that instead of asking whether it would happen, it makes more sense to ask what on earth could make it not happen.”)

    Climate modelers would love to be able to project better the precise effect of our continued use of the atmosphere as a dumping ground for CO2, but they cannot yet do that. The wide ranges given in the IPCC reports testify to that, and the dependence on scenarios shows the additional problem that accurate model projections also require us to be able to predict future human behavior, a notoriously difficult proposition. Similarly, I doubt that anyone has a good model to predict very well how many of the five passengers in a fully loaded standard passenger car will survive a head-on forty mile per hour collision. There are many variables that would need to be considered, some of which may not yet be well understood. But the inaccuracy of such models doesn’t mean we don’t know that such crashes are dangerous; as with climate change, there is also all that historical data and the physics that tells us in general terms what we can expect. And with climate change, we’d better start thinking about fastening our seat belts, rather than just hoping that a crash might not be all that bad because models can’t yet predict just how devastating it would be.

  • nampman

    Merchants of Doubt exposes the tactics used by some “pro-business” groups to intimidate scientists whose results might cost them money.

  • cwm4c

    If you read the article critically, Peter neither endorses nor denounces AGW.  His point on preferring science to courts and the press are to be encouraged by all of us.  I know the chorus will bring in other articles, but on this one alone, none of us should have an issue–regardless of where you fall in the AGW camps–that is irrelevant.

  • cwm4c

    Both sides consult Physicists and Geologists–please don’t disparage these fields as having nothing to contribute to this debate unless you belong to them?

  • cwm4c

    As someone posted above–Physicists and Gelogists don’t count in this discussion, so why should your PhD in Religion? (Sarcasm intended)  This henpecking is silly–everyone has some input here, including those that want the temperature drop from 1998-2010 explained beyond the Chinese increase in pollution (which was predicted in the 70s to have the opposite effect), and including those with mountains of proof of ocean temperature increases to know why this is not better known!

  • cwm4c

    Scott Mandia’s reply, like yours, is irrelevant to the original article and betterschool’s reply.  It doesn’t matter who’s correct–the bashing by each side must stop and does impede Science.  It is also why we cannot get the public to trust us!

  • megginson

    Good point, bpconrad. The original Watergate scandal came about from a group of thugs who planned and executed a break-in so that they’d get access to an organization’s private communications. Given that, calling the East Anglia hack Climategate is exactly right, but it’s surprising how many people seem to be missing the irony.

  • dank48

    I think it was Freeman Dyson who first pointed out that some believers in AGW have let it turn into a secular religion. Quite a few of the comments demonstrate this; they’re fully as bigoted as any zealot who sees every doubt, every question, every difference of opinion, as evidence of heresy.

    And of course, since heretics are always wrong, they can be shut up without qualms. I don’t know the science well enough to be so sure of myself, but I know a lynch mob when I see it.

  • Bogs_Dollocks

    Water vapour, including it’s condensed form of clouds, is the dominant green house gas. 

    CO2 is a minor green house gas.
    However, it is essential for plants and thus for all life on earth.

  • dank48

    “Quotations aside, religious zealotry has no hand in the scientific debate.”

    Exactly. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems to me you’re missing my point.

  • dank48

    All this discussion, and so many people have so much trouble sticking to the topic. I’m probably the dozenth person pointing out that the article is not about AGW; it’s about people’s behavior in discussions of AGW.

    Too many people accept “really really really believe” as a working definition of “know,” at least in the first-person singular.

    No matter how confident I am in my beliefs about AGW (or any other subject), I have an established track record of serious mistakes, unfortunate errors, and getting things wrong. So my normal human confidence in my own brilliant, well-educated, marvelously informed, insightful beliefs, convictions, and opinions should at least be seasoned by the awareness that I’ve been certain I was right plenty of times when I wasn’t, and I have no guarantee whatsoever that this isn’t another one of those times.

    Anyone who is unwilling to consider seriously the possibility that he or she might just be incorrect is  at least flirting with bigotry.

  • EricAdler

    You wrote:
    “At times when the weather is exceedingly warm, we hear that this is
    proof of AGW.  But when the weather is similarly cold, we hear that
    this, too, is proof of AGW (for example, from Robert Kennedy jr.)”

    No climate scientists argues that weather in a given day or month at a given location is proof of any climate trend. You will never find such an argument  in any scientific publication on climate science.

    Indeed you quoted Robert Kennedy Jr. who is not a climate scientist. I don’t form my opinion on climate science based on what I read from history teachers or attorneys, unless they are citing real climate scientists.

    Robert Kennedy Jr. who is an attorney did not make make the argument you attributed to him.
     
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/news/rfk-jr-15-months-ago-global-warming-means-no-snow-or-cold-dc

    He was not talking about a single winter, but rather about a number of years he remembers in his childhood and pointed out that in general recent years have seen less snow in Washington DC. People normally don’t go skiing or sledding anymore like they used to. This is not a reflection on a single day or months weather, and does qualify as an observation on climate change although it is not global but local climate.

    In fact the opinion editor of the Washington Examiner, from whom you apparently get your opinion on climate science, (you didn’t give a reference but it seems I have found the story online) made the following statement:

    “Having shoveled my walk five times in the midst of this past weekend’s
    extreme cold and blizzard, I think perhaps RFK, Jr. should leave weather
    analysis to the meteorologists instead of trying to attribute every
    global phenomenon to anthropogenic climate change.”

    It is pretty clear that he is trying to confuse  people into thinking that a single blizzard event outweighs the record of many years of weather which we call climate.

    I am dismayed that a professor of History gets his opinons on Climate Change from an opinon editor in a right wing political publication, rather than looking at publications by experts in climatology, and would want expose his folly to the public. This does not seem very scholarly to me.

  • JonasN

    Eric

    Again you are making wide, sweeping, general statements pretending to speak for ‘climate scientists’ (which you definitely are not) and claiming that you can determine which ones are of the ‘real’ variety and which ones aren’t.

    Maybe you should look up what Kevin Trenberth has to say about reversing the meaning of the ‘null hypothesis’ wrt weather events and climate change.

    You might miss most of the points, of course, but there is more to Bergmans observation than just some lines from a newspaper editor.

  • JohnMashey

    Thank you for  expressing your opinion, as per my email shown at:
    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/guest-post-bottling-nonsense-mis-using-a-civil-platform
    about a day ago.  Hopefully, mor NAS affiliates chairs will go on teh record as well.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    Another empty post devoid of substance.
    You say,
    “there is more to Bergmans observation than just some lines from a newspaper editor”
    If Bergman has another point why is he keeping it a secret?
    If you know what it is, why aren’t you more specific?

     Bergman’s opinion about climate change  seems to be based on  a right wing  newspaper editor who is confusing a weather event with climate. In the case of Heidi Cullen, Peter Wood forms his opinion about the actions of a climatologist based on what Rush Limbaugh said. This is not very scholarly to say the least.You don’t even attempt to refute that.

    Bergman is making a straw man argument here on the basis of that confusion. His comment is what you would expect from a bar room conversation about climate change, rather than that of a “Scholar” on web site dealing with issues involving higher education.

    You are saying I missed a point that he made in his brief post.  I have no clue what his secret unspoken point was, or if he has ever heard of Kevin Trenberth, or read anything that he has written.

    Do YOU want to discuss Trenberth’s remarks on communication climate change,  which caused such a stir in the AGW denier blogosphere?

    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/02/22/straight-talk-from-kevin-trenberth-on-denialists-climate-science-communication-and-climate-change-policy/

    http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Paper180230.html

    In his remarks Trenberth points out how the media promotes disinformation about climate change, confusing weather and climate. Trenberth points out:

    “The media continue to report highly misleading material about how cold outbreaks, snow events, or one cold month nullifies global warming when
    the big picture continues to indicate otherwise.”

    It seems that laymen such as Bergman and Woods have fallen as victims to this disinformation, but they are willing victims, because right wingers are motivated by politics to dislike the scientific theory of AGW

  • celested

    I believe this thread has a lot to offer in understanding where higher education and climate science have parted company in recent years.  The great majority of the 258 (so far) comments have pretty obviously taken one side or the other on the question of confidence in climate science’s insistence that anthropogenic global warming is a growing and serious problem.

    What I found particularly interesting is the proportion of those selecting the Like button for the comments that question that confidence, which far outnumber the likers of comments expressing or implying confidence in the science.

    When was the last time higher education had so little confidence in a branch of science?  And to what can we attribute this lack of confidence?  That it is clear that climate science is all humbug?  Or that those in higher education dislike being lectured to on topics where the answers are so obvious that there is no need for scientists to wade in and stir things up without a compelling reason?

  • JohnMashey

    celestad:
    1) Do you think Peter Wood and NAS are representative of higher education?

    2) Do you think that most of the comments here have been written by people seriously  involved in higher education?

    You might want to check
    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/guest-post-bottling-nonsense-mis-using-a-civil-platform

    and then a brief analysis of the (predictable) dynamics of all his can be found at:
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php

    3) Do you think “likes” are a meaningful polling technique?

    4) I would have been delighted if:
    a) Peter Wood had stayed engaged, instead of ignoring my and Rob’s article.
    b) A few more NAS members had been willing to participate (I asked the affiliate leaders, but only one posted).
    c) A few more clearly-identifiable academics showed up.

  • celested

    Megginson, your comment here is the first one I’ve felt comfortable with in this thread, as it succeeds in being substantive without having to stake out the “you’re right and I’m wrong” position that most commentators have adopted.

    So I would turn to you rather than to either Mr. Wood or Dr. Mashey (who has been the only one I’ve criticized so far) to ask about something that has been puzzling me.

    Why do you suppose the focus of this thread has been the attacks on skeptics when the attacks on climate scientists are surely just as noteworthy if not more so?

    The latter date back at least as far as 1996 with the repeated attacks by Fred Seitz on IPCC lead author Ben Santer.  These began with Seitz’s op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal for June 12, 1996.  Wood’s “Climate thuggery” title is cast from the same mold as Seitz’s title for his editorial: “A Major Deception in Global Warming.”  Seitz wrote “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process” and appeared to foreshadow a larger agenda with “If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process.”

    Seitz being well credentialed, having served as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, this naturally caused an enormous uproar, and all organizations concerned proceeded to investigate these startling charges.

    The upshot was that those who continued to believe Seitz’s charges would appear to have been cut from the same cloth as those convinced that someone besides Harvey Lee Oswald shot JFK.  Nothing short of a huge conspiracy theory can overcome the fact that every government and scientific organization that looked into the matter completely exonerated Santer.  Santer’s own recent perspective on this episode can be read here where he is still clearly being dogged by these unfounded charges made against him 14 years earlier.

    Santer of course is not the only climate scientist to come under attack in this way.  Phil Jones and Michael Mann have been more recent recipients of strikingly similar treatment.

    The complete neglect of these attacks by Mr. Wood is what puzzles me.  Unless he’s a conspiracy theorist (of which there is clearly no shortage among climate skeptics) I find it very hard to reconcile this neglect with the earnestness with which he professes his neutrality in the matter.

    Having been critical only of Dr. Mashey in my previous posts, I hope picking on the other side this time corrects any misimpression that I’m taking sides in this quarrel.  While I don’t see how to defend either Mashey or Wood, I also don’t see how to defend a theory that says that the surface of the Earth receives nearly
    twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the Sun
    .  No wonder so many are skeptical of global warming when they hear what sounds like rubbish to them.

  • squiddude

    Wow.  Beautiful stuff.  Quite surreal.  Somewhat painful. Thanks to the poet.  And thanks CHE for posting poems.