Sharon Old’s The Unswept Room

It’s never a good sign when it takes me a long time to read a book of poetry, and I started reading Sharon Olds’ The Unswept Room just before Christmas when I was waiting in the airport Christmas Eve to pick up Tyson, Jen and Logan. Reading the first poems, I decided that they were simply too depressing to read during the Christmas season for they describe a dysfunctional, abusive family and the effect that family has on the poem’s narrator.

Of course, the simple fact that I found them disturbing enough that I wanted to put them off to a later time seems positive to me. The early poems are in the tradition of Sexton, Plath, and Howe, and unfortunately those are tough poets to follow. While Olds does stake out her own territory, a middle ground where the parents seem more dysfunctional than abusive, there is little that is truly new here and the poems lack the vivid imagery that sets Sexton’s poems apart. Still, as Thomas F. Dillingham notes, “To her admirers, Olds is a poet of direct physicality and painful honesty, depicting aspects of family life and of personal relationships that have rarely been described in such intimate or graphic terms.” I’m just not sure that I belong among her admirers.

My favorite poems are found in the middle of the book where Olds’ narrator begins to discover that, given the right circumstances, it is possible to overcome the effects of a dysfunctional childhood. One of my favorite, perhaps because it reminds me of some of my own feelings for my first-born daughter is:

FIRST WEEKS

Those first weeks, I don’t know if I knew
how to love our daughter. Her face looked crushed,
crumpled with worry-and not even
despair, but just depression, a look of
endurance. The skin of her face was finely
wrinkled, there were wisps of hair on her ears,
she looked a little like a squirrel, suspicious,
tranced. And smallish, 6.13,
wizened-she looked as if she were wincing
away from me without moving. The first
moment I had seen her, my glasses off,
in the delivery room, a blur of blood,
and blue skin, and limbs, I had known her,
upside down, and they righted her, and there
came that faint, almost sexual, wail, and her
whole body flushed rose.
When I saw her next, she was bound in cotton,
someone else had cleaned her, wiped
the inside of my body off her
and combed her hair in narrow scary
plough-lines. She was ten days early;
sleepy, the breast so engorged it stood out nearly
even with the nipple, her lips would so much as
approach it, it would hiss and spray.
In two days we took her home, she shrieked
and whimpered, like a dream of a burn victim,
and when she was quiet, she would lie there and peer, not quite
anxiously. I didn’t blame her,
she’d been born to my mother’s daughter. I would kneel
and gaze at her, and pity her.
All day I nursed her, all night I walked her,
and napped, and nursed, and walked her. And then,
one day, she looked at me, as if
she knew me. She lay along my forearm, fed, and
gazed at me as if remembering me,
as if she had known me, and liked me, and was getting
her memory back. When she smiled at me,
delicate rictus like a birth-pain coming,
I fell in love, I became human.

While I’m not enamored of the style or imagery of this poem, I do identify with the feelings of inadequacy when first confronted with a crying child and the feelings of elation when that bundle of howls finally smiles at you. The poem does a good job of finding the middle ground between the pure sentimental mush that accompanies most poems about babies and the despair that accompanies her earlier poems. I found the lines, “I didn’t blame her,/ she’d been born to my mother’s daughter. I would kneel/and gaze at her, and pity her” and the last line “I fell in love, I became human” particularly moving and insightful.

Unfortunately, there is too little focus on these middle poems for Olds all too quickly moves to poems celebrating sex that made me sympathetic to charges that moved detractors like “the critic Helen Vendler, to describe her work as self-indulgent, sensationalist, and even pornographic.” While I wouldn’t go so far as to agree with Dan Schneider’s essay
“Sharon Olds’ Orifices & The Inculcation Of Tedium,” though I did find it amusing enough to include it here after suffering through the last twenty poems, I found the narrator’s description of sex with her husband nearly as offensive as Ginsberg’s description of sex with his partner. Personally, I would suspect that if the reader needs to be told “Sex had been/ like music, high and bright as the moon,/ sugar as the milk that had leaped in a little/ arc from the breast” or “Now,/ will entered, and abandonment of heaven,/ and extremes of feeling I had not known existed/ outside of rooms where people hurt each other./ We loved each other” as Olds does in “A Time of Passion,” they would simply be incapable of understanding the poem at all. In other words, she bored me by stating the obvious in rather strained similes and metaphors.

Though I was struck by the idea of including poems about dysfunctional families and overcoming the effects of that family through a celebration of love, unfortunately I didn’t find the execution of those ideas particularly convincing or effective. Perhaps others would find it more so, and certainly there can never be too much awareness of the harmful effects of dysfunctional or abusive families

A Snow Break

Don’t give up on me yet, folks. I’m almost back to posting on poetry. I’ve nearly finished Sharon Olds’ The Unswept Room
and should be posting on that tomorrow (especially now that I’ve said I would).

I probably would have finished my first entry today, but Tacoma got a rare snowstorm last night and today, so I had to spend much of my day running food out for the birds, both sunflower seeds for the sparrows:

and, more importantly, sugar solution for the poor little hummingbird who apparently forgot to go South. I had to run out every hour and bring the hummingbird feeder in and thaw it. Unfortunately it turns out that hummingbirds are harder to take pictures of than sparrows. Everytime I tried to move in close up to fill up the screen on my digital camera, the hummingbird buzzed off.

I had to settle for some pictures of Leslie and Skye on the trail:

Well naturally I had get out and hike in the snow. After all, this is Tacoma’s first real snow storm in six years. Who knows when the next one will get here?

For Thinking Out Loud !!!

Although ironically enough the anti-religious site “Is America a Christian Nation?” appears as the first entry when you do a Google search on “Is America a Christian Nation?”, the most common reply is the one found at sites like “America’s Godly Heritage,” where it’s charged that “active humanists and the liberal media have for years undertaken a concentrated effort to misinform the American public by attacking the “Religious Right” and rewriting America’s Judeo-Christian history in a humanistic tone.”

If America is, indeed, founded on Christian principles, it would seem that at the very least it would have to be based on the fundamental belief that
“Unsaved Man is inherently evil because that belief seems to underly the Christian beliefs of most of those who argue that our nation is based on Christian principles.

If we did accept that premise, it would seem to follow that society and its members must be protected from that inherent evil by strict rules strictly enforced. In fact, according to William Golding, without such rules our world would soon be ruled by the Lord of the Flies, Beelzebub, the dung god, Satan himself.

In Golding’s famous Lord of the Flies a group of British boys is stranded on an island after the ship evacuating them during World War III is destroyed by an enemy. At first the boys agree to work together and “follow the rules” to make things work, for they are, after all, British. Soon, though, driven by the desire for pig flesh, and apparently by the lack of adult supervision, the boys forget society’s rules, reverting to savagery. They end up worshipping the head of a pig mounted on a spear, The Lord of the Flies. “Bullocks to the rules.” Without rules, at least according to Golding, the Beast residing within each of us (man’s inherent evil) takes over and people return to savagery.

Lord of the Flies is indeed a powerful book; otherwise it’s doubtful that so many people would try to get it banned. If you’ve taught a few too many classes dominated by boys determined to prove education is a complete waste of time (Golding taught at a private boys school early in his career), it is tempting to accept this view of human nature. Certainly, as well documented on various trashy, and not-so-trashy, talk shows, teenagers can be unbelievably cruel to those who they think are weak or “different.” Whether Golding proves the premise that “Man is inherently evil”, however, still seems debatable.

Of course, we don’t have to depend on mere fiction to examine the validity of the premise. In examining our country’s own history, we discover that our Puritan ancestors apparently accepted this premise because they designed a strict, “Christian” government, that punished sinners and encouraged citizens to turn in those they suspected of sinning. They were as close to a theocracy as any government in America has ever been. In fact, it is probably this group, and the Pilgrims, that most conservatives refer to when they argue that our forefathers came to America to found a Christian nation. Conservatives would have you believe that by defying the King of England that the Puritans somehow founded American democracy. If so, it is a rather strange definition of “democracy,” one that would be unlikely to win the vote of most Americans today.

Today this “Christian” government is probably best remembered, except on nostalgic Thanksgivings, for the Salem witch trials
where Giles Corey was pressed to death for “refusing a trial” and where 20 apparently innocent women were hanged as witches. . While it’s questionable whether Arthur Miller’s The Crucible is good history, it raises enough questions that most of us would fear such a government.”

Of course, history also tells us that this is the same government that banished Anne Hutchinson for her Quaker views and hanged Mary Dyer on June 1, 1660, because as a Quaker she was considered a “hard-headed heretic.” Ironically, many of those religious conservatives who long for a truly “Christian” government would likely be condemned as “heretics” by the Puritans, not because they are more or less religious, but because their brand of conservatism is not the same brand of conservatism as the Puritans’ conservatism.

A few years after the Puritans’ demise, even writer’s like Nathaniel Hawthorne, whose grandfather played a prominent role in the Salem Witch Trials, would question their harsh treatment of dissenters, would say of his Puritan ancestors:

I know not whether these ancestors of mine bethought themselves to repent, and ask pardon of heaven for their cruelties; or whether they are now groaning under the heavy consequences of them, in another state of being. At all events, I, the present writer, as their representative, hereby take shame upon myself for their sakes, and pray that any curse incurred by them — as I have heard, and as the dreary and unprosperous condition of the race, for many a long year back, would argue to exist — may be now and henceforth removed.

Ironic isn’t it that the “Christian,” Puritan government ended up destroying itself by savagely killing innocent members of the community in much the same way the boys killed Piggy because he was “different” and would not give in to the pressures of the group.