Robert Frost once said, “Poetry is what gets lost in translation,” and in reading Kirby’s “The Big Jacket” and Tate’s “A Knock On The Door,” I’m not sure exactly what to make of it all. The “poems” seem more like commentary than poetry, and more like mindless ramblings than commentary. Where do I draw a line to say something is poetry, and when do I read between the lines to find the art. If poetry is what gets lost in translation, then I suppose I need to decipher it, but with poetry being a language of the soul, are we doing a psychological analysis of the authors, or of ourselves?
James Tate, a Kansas City favorite son, was born on December 8th, 1943, and his father, a fighter pilot, was tragically killed in the Second World War. It is quite apparent that this affected his poetry, in that his first collection of poems was called, The Lost Pilot.[1] While unsure it is fair to say this is the only inspiration for his poetic musings, it would be ignorant to say it didn’t play an important role in his childhood and general outlook on life. When speaking of Tate’s work, the poet John Ashbery wrote in the New York Times:
Educated in Kansas and Iowa, whose idiom may not sound familiar to inhabitants of those states. But then again, it may. Tate knows that all places are the same place, and conversely, ”If you ain’t where you are, you’re no place.” Elsewhere he writes, ”Adios Toledo, see you in Ohio.” Local color plays a role, but the main event is the poet’s wrestling with passing moments, frantically trying to discover the poetry there and to preserve it, perishable as it is. Tate is the poet of possibilities, of morph, of surprising consequences, lovely or disastrous, and these phenomena exist everywhere.[2]
As we have delved into James Tate’s shortened life story, it becomes essential to finally dive into the work at hand. In Tate’s poem, “A Knock On The Door,” he discusses his distaste with those who would rather speak of death than to live life as it is. In the instance of his seemingly observational narrative he gives us a hint at Jehovah’s Witness evangelists who he invites into his home, only to find they would rather speak of death than to partake in his pastries. He goes on to mention the “Grapeleaf Skeletonizer,” which is somewhat of a pest that devours leaves, usually consuming all but the veins; A stark comparison with time eating away at life, and life eating away at us.
Diverging from James Tate for a short period, now we move onto David Kirby, who wrote the poem “The Big Jacket.” Unlike Tate whom has a vast amount of information available about his early life, Kirby has little to none. What little could be discovered about the man’s early life tells us one thing, he was born in the same war torn world that Tate was born into, as he was born in 1944.[3] Kirby has an apparent sense of humor and drives his inspiration from John Keats and Little Richard.[4] Interestingly enough his colleague Thomas K. Wetherell wrote “Your poems have evolved into complex, commodious, overlapping narratives blending stand-up humor and knock-down wisdom.”[5] It seems that would highlight the man’s personality and writing style pretty well.
In “The Big Jacket,” Kirby discusses the days leading up to, and the day of an Opera. When first reading the said poem, one might have trouble distinguishing; exactly what is occurring because the writing style is so rambunctious, and seems very much like rambling of a drunk man. Fortunately the poem shapes up as it moves forward and it becomes very apparent what the poem is about. Now as to whether there is a deeper meaning behind the poem, that has yet to be seen, but it’s doubtful. The poem very much has a face value, and based on what we know about the poet, it points us towards not reading too deep into the poem and rather enjoying the narrative as comedy.
Both poets use a humorous dialogue to draw us into the writings, and both poets actually have similar writing styles in that they are, both presenting their works in a narrative voice, a commentary of events rather than a deep description. They both seem to evaluate everyday life, and take a Seinfeld like approach in that it’s poetry about nothing. Nothing but the everyday, yet it remains interesting.
The poets both grew up in the 1940s and 50s and both poems were written in the 1990s, which surely had an effect on their outlooks and comedy tastes, though frankly they both seem to have a satirical reflection that is seen mostly in the nineteen nineties. Tate’s sarcastic remarks ring distinctively in his work of “A Knock On The Door.” He verbally dismantles the Jehovah Witness ideas of death and expresses his own coming to terms with it in a fowl swoop of “smart” remarks. He goes on to make an interesting comment at the end, “a black cloud over their heads and they seen nothing without end.” Nothing without end is or could be a Jewish reference, seeing as the term “nothingness without end” is used to describe God in the Jewish tradition, depending on translation.
Kirby parallels this dialogue with his encountering tale of a credit card company, which again he has a very Jerry Seinfeld like view on the event, rambling on about how an every day event could be so ridiculous and humorous at the same time. Tate and Kirby both have very similar humor style and again, they are almost indistinguishable in these two works that have been assigned to be analyzed. Kirby does have a distinction though, he uses a lot of slang and even, at times, improper grammar, using regional accents to highlight, and bring his poem to life.
One might find it rather enjoyable that Kirby was able to twist the story from, initial confusion and turning it into a satirical piece on an ordinary situation. A very Larry David like touch, knowing that this is never described in either of their biographies; it is still felt one can almost bet they both have general roots in dry, smart humor that parallels very much with a lot of comedian and sitcom observations. As both men were born in the 1940s, having come out of the depression and going through adolescence in the 1950s and 1960s, one could say that American pop culture definitely played a role in raising the two men. Especially considering Tate lost his father at a very young age, so he likely never really grew up with a father figure.
Going back to the poems, in “The Big Jacket,” the narrative sounds very feminine, in the smiling foolishly at the Opera performer over the collar, which seems almost flirtatious. One might have gotten the impression during the reading of the poem that the author was indeed a female, especially if one didn’t know that the author was a male. Meanwhile the poem, “A Knock On The Door,” has a transgender feel that could either be male or female. It’s difficult to determine why this occurs, but perhaps there are other intentions in using this style of narrative.
Both authors leave a feeling of mockery in the narratives, which again ties their types of humors to be very similar. In “The Big Jacket,” Kirby leaves a sense of childhood wonder and mockery of the stage performers. It may have been safe to assume that the poem was about a child if not a female, but the poem discusses adult issues and uses derogatory language, and makes references to his elderly mother. One may still feel that the person in the poem has maintained a child like wonder and teenage persona. However in contrast, the poem by Tate, offers a more adult aspect and a coming to terms with death, which is not dealt with in the other poem. Tate expresses that life should be enjoyed rather than counting down to the end, watching the sands of time wash away beneath our feet.
Tate maybe expressing this feeling more so in his poem, as we reflect back to his childhood, in that he lost his father at a young age. Some people may find it less important, but the role of parents is likely one of the most important molding factors of a child. While, little information is available about the early childhood of David Kirby, one may also assume that his parents had a possible disruption, possibly growing up without his father for a short period of time because of the wars of the period.
“Good manners are the glue of society,” or so says Seinfeld’s Kramer, yet we see both poets having questionable manners in their mocking and off the cuff remarks to either the Jehovah’s Witness evangelists or credit card agencies. Are we to assume that these are for comedic effect, or are they trying to bring out and question cultural norms and etiquette? Culture is somewhat of script in and of itself for acceptable behavior in a society, and I keep going back to Seinfeld references because I feel that it is a good parallel with questioning cultural norms and the type of humor the two authors present to us. Both attempt to draw us out of our comfort zone in facing real life situations, yet keep a reality check on their audience and members of the narrative.
James Tate and David Kirby both share many similarities, in their types of humor, but what hasn’t been greatly discussed is what Tate’s colleague called, the poets “wrestling with passing moments, frantically trying to discover the poetry there.” Kirby and Tate both draw from what seems to be direct observations of their surroundings, while maintaining a satirical and exaggerated environment to which they can stretch their humor over our eyes like a veil to see as they themselves have seen the event in their collective minds.
Neither poet keeps meter in their writing; rather it feels more like reading ramblings and cultural insights from a comedic person. It feels very much like a sitcom’s dialogue or a script proposal, yet each has an element that separates it from that genre. It almost forces us to leave poetry undefined, as Wallace Stevens once said, “Poetry is the statement of a relation between a man and the world.” If this is the case, then poetry is everything, like art, but these poets don’t even fall under this large scope, because both men have a statement between themselves and other men.
Upon looking at what people think about poetry, it’s hard to distinguish what exactly has been lost in translation. If poetry is an echo, asking a shadow to dance as Carl Sandburg has stated, then perhaps poetry is what is heard but never seen. The idea that poetry is lost in translation is perhaps true, but poetry is what we perceive it to be, much like the worlds the poets present to us in these two poems. It is hard to analyze a poet’s intentions without asking them directly, and even with enough background information we find ourselves paralyzed by our own unsound minds. So in all reality, reading a poem and analyzing it isn’t so much a reflection of the poet, but a reflection of our own world views. Language shapes our perception of reality, and our own reality shapes the perception of language.
[1] “James Tate”,
Academy of American Poets 19 Oct. 2008: <http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/70>
[2] John, Ashbery. “The Poetry Symposium.” The New York Times [New York] 21 Nov. 2004: <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/books/review/21SYMPOSI.html>.
[3] David Kirby (poet), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kirby_(poet)
[4] Robert O. Lawton, David Kirby, http://www.fsu.edu/profiles/kirby/ (2004).
[5] Thomas K. Wetherell, Citation for David Kirby, http://www.davidkirby.com/about.html (2 May. 2003).
