The Iow Review Volume 5 Issue 2 Spring Article 31 1974 An Interview with Stnley Kunitz Stnley Kunitz Michel Ryn Follow this nd dditionl works t: https://ir.uiow.edu/iowreview Prt of the Cretive Writing Commons Recommended Cittion Kunitz, Stnley nd Michel Ryn. "An Interview with Stnley Kunitz." The Iow Review 5.2 (1974): 76-85. Web. Avilble t: https://doi.org/10.17077/0021-065x.1734 This Contents is brought you for free nd open ccess by Iow Reserch Online. It hs been ccepted for inclusion in The Iow Review by n uthorized dministrr of Iow Reserch Online. For more informtion, plese contct lib-ir@uiow.edu.
An Interview with Stnley Kunitz Michel Ryn INT.: Your first book of poems, Intellectul Things, ws published in 1930. Wht re your reflections on continuing write poems seriously for lmost 50 yers? S.K.: I suppose my min is tht writing poetry, for me, hs been like brething. It hs been the condition of my existence. I've never considered surviving without poetry. The first poems come you out of nowhere. You don't know tht you re vessel; ll you know is tht you hve poems tht hve be written. Lter, those erly poems seem completely extr becuse ordinry you relize tht were you immture terribly person emotionlly. I think most people in their erly or mid-twenties re not redy tke the mntle of over "poet" their shoulders nd sy "I m poet." It's littie ridiculous mke tht ssumption t tht time in your life?it my be ridiculous t ny time. I think of one's for lnguge s kind of prehensile thing; it must be in the genes. You don't know why you're writing poems, ny more thn ct knows why it clws t the brk of tree, but you're doing it. Becuse you hve do it. And your intellectul life, such s it is t tht stge, is relly something seprte from your for the lnguge itself. Bsiclly, the young poet hs model himself on the poets whom he loves, preferbly not from those who hppen be in fshion t the moment. INT.: If I remember the correctly, only poet you mention in explicitly ny of your poems is Mrvell. There is definite ffinity the metphysicl poets in tht first volume. Would you sy tht ws your initil influence? S.K.: I ws md bout the metphysicl poets. During the time when I strted writing seriously, I ws t Hrvrd, studying primrily with John Livings n Lowes. In the were bckground Irving Bbbitt, whom I lso worked with nd who, I thought ws n enemy of everything I believed in, nd Kittridge, who ws the gret scholist of the period. But Lowes ws the one who relly tught poetry, nd his fith ws in the Romntic poets, s ws mine There wsn't even course in the initilly. metphysicl poets. So I cme upon them independently, nd they seemed closest tht pr ticulr qulity of voice nd mind tht I cred bout. INT.: One thing tht strikes me in reding your first volume is your ttrction forms. Wsn't prt of Eliot nd Pound's influence t the time brek strict form? S.K.: The poems in Intellectul Things dte from 1927, when I ws 22. It's true tht Eliot cme notice bout 1916 or so, nd so did Pound, with their first writings, but they hd no reputtion in the cdemic or generl world. I proposed writing my mster's thesis t Hrvrd on the techniques 76 University of Iow is collborting with JSTOR digitize, preserve, nd extend ccess The Iow Review www.jsr.org
of the Modern writers; the ones I included were Hopkins, Eliot, Cummings, Joyce, Mrinne Moore, nd, I believe, Proust. When I presented my pro posl the hed of the deprtment, Lowes, he looked t me in bsolute mzement nd sid, "You men you tke these people seriously? Don't you know they're only our pulling legs?" Tht's bout where the Modern Movement ws then. It's difficult explin now, but hisriclly the wy in the new poetry ws through the doorwy of the seventeenth century, through the rediscovery of the metphysicl trdition. Tone nd technique were the primry gittions. INT.: Invribly in your first book, the poems dhere strict rhyme scheme nd metricl pttern, but in mny cses the wy in which the line is broken tends concel tht. So the question rises, use why conventionl form in order subsume it? S.K.: I suppose I believed in n rt of limittions, in certin restrictions tht the form itself imposes; however, I lso believed tht if you insisted upon them o strictly, if, for exmple, you mde your rhymes so obvious tht there ws no escping them, the result would be n offense the er. Bsiclly I've lwys written ccording wht my er ld me, nd not ccording ny rbitrry system of metrics or liner conventions. From the beginning, lthough I ws writing in rhyming nd metric ptterns, I wnted escpe their So the rt ws one of omnipresence. using the con ventions, but trying move within their limits so tht the conventions were not obvious. INT.: And the limittion, perhps, forced discoveries? S.K.: The setting up of form, whtever the form my be, implies certin limit tions. The problem, then, is be s free s possible within tht necessity of your choice. If you don't hve boundries, you re fced with infinity. And my ssumption is tht rt is incpble of deling with infinity, t lest in ny forml sense. INT.: Where, then, does the restriction or limittion come from when you do not write using conventionl form, s in mny of the poems in your most recent book, The Testing-Tree? S.K.: I hve music hunting my er, so tht's one limittion; in secondly, writing wht my look like free verse I hve system of strong bets in mind. In recent yers my line hs been getting shorter, prtly becuse I'm cutting down on the djectives?i'm down two or usully three stresses line. This permits ny number of syllbles, within reson, s s long the ground pttern is preserved. But the controls re relly in the er itself, nd I don't think they should be nywhere else. The er must tell you if line is o long, o short, if it lcks bckbone, if it's nerveless, if it hs enough promonries, if it hs tension of ny kind. INT.: Tht system of stresses is very pprent in the title poem, "The Testing Tree" nd "The Cusms-Collecr's Report" nd "River Rod," but it's less obvious me in "Robin Redbrest" nd "The Mulch." Mybe the ltter two re poems less simply incntry. 77 Criticism
S.K.: They probbly re, but I think tht in terms of wht I cll functionl stressing they follow very closely pttern the er hs determined. INT. : And tht's n intuitive pttern? S.K.: It is not counted. I write my poems by sying them. It's the only wy I know how write. If it doesn't stisfy my er then I know it's wrong. So essentilly I'm proceeding from the sme bsis I lwys did, which is the tht poetry hs n llegince music nd nother llegince dnce. The problem for the poet is both sing nd dnce, nd yet re min within the limits of lnguge. INT.: A tension rises, does it not, between the impulse wrd sound nd the impulse wrd content? S.K.: Tht's the trgic nexus of poetry. The poem wnts be pure sound nd it lso wnts be stright sense, nd it cn never be either. INT.: Becuse if it's stright sense S.K. : So why put it in poem? it's simply discursive prose? INT. : And if it's pure sound, it's music? S.K.: And poetry is neither, but yerns in both directions. INT.: Do you think either impulse could be identified s primry source for the poem? S.K.: The word tht needs be introduced in this context is "periodicity." This is wht we lern from our immersion in the nturl world: its cyclicl pttern. The dy itself is periodic, from morning through noon night; so o the strs in their pssge, the tides, the sesons, the bet of the hert, women in their courses. This wreness of periodicity is wht gives us the sense of universl pulse. And ny rt tht does not convey tht sense is lesser rt. In poetry, it leds us, s Coleridge very definitely sw, wrd n orgnic principle. I suppose tht perception by Coleridge is the most profound ssertion ever mde bout the nture of poetry, which I s the rt. regrd supreme All the other rts, music s except composi tion, require some mtter in order fulfill themselves. The gret thing bout poetry is tht your selfhood is simultneously your instrument nd your vessel. The words of poem re like second skin. They're not prt from the self; they're inwoven with the tissue of the life. INT.: Lnguge lso hs hisry prt from ny individul, which leds n inexorble fct, for me, tht the poem hs n existence prt from the poet. It tells him t times wht sy. There is lwys tension, for me, between self nd hisry, poet nd poem. S.K.: I don't think tht's o different from the wy your body tells you you're in love, you're growing old, or you're bout die. The lnguge tells you it hs certin preordined conditions: it hs, for exmple, syntx; it hs vocbulry; it hs symbolic mening. Nobody owns it. When you uch lnguge, you uch the evolution of consciousness nd the hisry of the tribe. You rech for ol, common ol, nd find your surprise tht it hs cuneiform inscription on the hndle. INT.: I would like tlk more bout the development of your work; since 78
you've lredy described some of the chnges tht hve occurred in your in terms poems of form, could you tlk bout how concerns or your sub jects hve chnged? In the first book, for exmple, there's n obsession with thought, brin, concept, nd the poems re self-reflecting; in the most recent book, the poems re quieter nd more involved with the ex ternl world. How do you see this development? S.K.: Nturlly my poems reflect my trnsformtions, though I should hope you might detect in them some spirit or principle tht persists. My erly writing ws dense nd involuted?so, I guess, ws I! Now wht I m seeking is trnsprency of lnguge nd vision. Mybe ge itself compels me embrce the gret s simplicities, I struggle free myself from the knots nd complictions, the hngups, of my youth. Not tht I hve forgotten, or wnt forget, the rges of my unhppy yers?they still seethe inside me. It's true tht I m snished, in my sixties, by the depth of my ffection for this life. It's eqully true tht I m no more reconciled thn I ever ws the world's wrongs nd the injustice of time. INT.: You sy the rge is still seething. Is tht rge importnt poet, his work? S.K.: No question of tht. A poet needs keep his wilderness live inside him. One of the prerequisites for remining poet fter, let's sy, the ge of 40 or 50, is n wreness of the wilderness within oneself tht will never be domesticted, never tmed. He must never vert his fce completely from the terrors of tht drk underworld. INT.: In the most recent book, you're obviously interested in s hisry mte ril for poems; in the first book, the nlogous mteril is myth nd Do see theology. you this s trnsference of the sme development impulse? S.K.: I don't think it's s cler s your description implies. There re poems in The Testing-Tree tht re just s involved with s rchetypes nything I've ever done. And the hisric mterils, s I see them, overrun the foothills of myth. INT.: Do you see tht impulse, if I cn so identify your interest in myth nd s hisry, wy out of the ego? S.K.: Perhps. The self renews nd fortifies itself by flling in love with time. Otherwise it's doomed repet itself indefinitely. One hopes remin open nd vulnerble, keep on being terrified by hisry. INT.: Do you think tht the of cuses most ctivity writing poets be mono mnicl, in the sense tht it is inherent in the ctivity itself tht one cn only write bout limited prt of his entire life? S.K.: Oh yes. In this respect, one of the chins round every poet's neck is his own s development poet. His beginnings re lrgely genertionl combintion of ccidents nd phenomenon, influences; therefter, he builds on tht foundtion. Mybe t certin point he would prefer fresh strt, but the difficulty is tht he hs lredy estblished the condition of his rt. To chnge your style you hve chnge your life. I think lmost 79 Criticism
ny of the poets we vlue, if they hd lived long enough, might hve become their opposites s poets. No single kind of poetry would be suffi cient for millenium. INT.: You hve not been the most prolific poet in the hisry of literture. S.K.: God, no. INT. : Tht implies wy of working which is perhps prtilly not determinble nd prtilly determined. Do you wnt tlk bout tht? S.K.: Sure. I relize tht re mde reputtions by volume s much s by ny thing else. Most of the big reputtions in modern Americn poetry hve been mde on the bsis of lrge body of work. Tht doesn't hppen be my style. Over lifetime I've written poems only when I felt I hd poems write. I do not feel pologetic bout refusing convert myself in mchine for producing verse. Sometimes I tliink tht poetry hs become ntion of monsters. The nomly is tht, s one of the few survivors of my genertion of poets, I'm suddenly thretening become prolific?for me, tht is. INT.: Do you think it's hrder now hve tht ptience in reltionship the work? Insofr s the university hs become the new ptron in recent yers, the sitution for young poet, or perhps for ny poet, is such tht he must publish book in order tech. And not just one book, but two books, three books, nd four books, sometimes ll o quickly. Ws the tmosphere more conducive hving tht ptience 30 or 40 yers go? S.K.: To nswer your question, I'll tell you something of my hisry. When I ws bout recieve my mster's from degree Hrvrd, I ssumed tht I could sty on s teching ssistnt if I wnted, not becuse I ws lredy poet but becuse of my record. As it turned scholrship out, I did not sty on; I ws ld indirectly through the hed of the English de prtment tht Anglo-Sxons would resent being tught English by Jew, even by Jew with summ cum lude. Tht shook my world. It seemed me such cruel nd wnn rejection tht I turned wy from cdemic life completely. After I left Hrvrd, I hd no rel contct with universities for lmost 20 yers; I worked on newspper, frmed, free-lnced, edited publictions. Then something completely fortuius hppened. In 1945, I ws in the third wretched for vrious resons. I ws con Army?my yer?nd scientious objecr who hd ccepted service on the premise tht I would not ber rms, but the Army refused cknowledge the terms of our greement? nightmre from beginning end. Out of nowhere I received wire from Benningn College offering me on position the English fculty s soon s I ws dischrged. Of course I sntched t it. One needs revolution every few yers, nd in my circumstnces this seemed heven sent. I knew tht Roethke ws t Benningn, but didn't know tht he hd been violent mnic of his worst. wnted through episode?one They ese him out, but he ws being difficult bout it. Finlly, he ld them he 80
would leve quietly on one condition: hire Kunitz. So tht's how I begn teching. I suppose my personl experience is involved with my s bout poets in the university. On the whole I think it's stultifying for young poets lep immeditely in the cdemic life. They would be better off tsting the rigors of less regulted existence. I ws over 40 when I begn tech, nd I m grteful now for the difficult yers of my preprtion. And I still consider myself free gent, moving from plce never plce, tenure. Blke ccepting sid, "I must crete or system be enslved myself by nother mn's." If poet wnts wit 30 yers publish his next book, he should be given 30 yers. Wht difference does it mke in the eye of eternity? INT. : You published your first poems in mgzines such s The Dil nd Hound nd Horn. S.K.: Tht's right. INT.: How do those mgzines compre those which re published dy? S.K.: One of the nostlgic s I hve now is for those publictions. I remem ber I hd just grduted from college when I sent my first btch of poems The Dil. Within ten dys I received hndwritten letter from Mrinne Moore, who ws editing The Dil then: it ws very simple little messge this effect: "Der Mr. Kunitz: I hve red your poems, nd I do dmire them. We shll be so hppy publish them." I felt I hd been blessed by the There re no now tht re even gods. mgzines fintly nlogous The Dil. I don't cre relly where I publish nymore. Severl of the young poets I know hve tht sme of diffidence. There's no pub liction dy tht gives them sense of snction. A gret loss. INT.: Hs the udience for poetry chnged since tht time? S.K.: The udience is bigger nd, I think, more knowing thn it hs ever been. Tht's the prdox. Certinly, it hs spun off in scttered littie urbn cells nd colleges; but still, it's there, everywhere you go, community of friends, witing, When I ws listening. college student, nd for decde or two therefter, no ws in contemporry poetry the uni tught versities. Poets were not sked red, let lone tech. The underlying ws tht ssumption poetry, fter nd Kipling Amy Lowell, ws not voction. respectble INT.: Cn you compre the qulity of the poetry itself? S.K.: It's better now. No And so much of it! Even morons comprison. nowdys seem ble write "ccomplished" poems. INT.: We do seem hve pssed the ge of literry gints. Do you hve n explntion for tht? S.K.: The reson is cler. In one sense, rt is from In hier inseprble politics. rchicl societies, genius tends flow the p?it percoltes down on the lesser fry from the wering few who dominte the ge. As society becomes more nd more democrtized, the of the rce is genius dispersed 81 Criticism
mong nd lrger lrger numbers. A dilution occurs, so tht now perhps there re 20 poets who gether re the equivlent of Miln. There is, however, no Miln. INT. : Is tht unfortunte? S.K.: I doubt it. Perhps it's reversion primitive societies, where everybody composes songs. Mybe we're inching bck some sort of chorus of poets?no gret poets, but still, now nd then, gret poems. INT.: The reversion you describe clls mind McLuhn's notion of the globl villge. Do you think the populr medi hve influenced poetry in ny wy? S.K.: The populr medi, by definition, ttrct the ttention of most of the most of the people time?nd, of course, they're esy tke. I see no reson n orl trdition nd written why trdition shouldn't co-exist? they've done so for centuries. Hisriclly the former hve influenced the ltter, s when the bllds entered in the strem of English Romnticism. Right now the contrry is true. Bob Dyln, Leonrd Cohen, Rod McKuen, for in scle of exmple, descending interest, re byproducts, vulgriz tions, of the literry trdition. Compre them with the jzz musicins or the gospel singers, who were uthentic expressions of the folk. INT.: Do you think it's possible integrte politics nd poetry? Some of the poems in your second book, Pssport the Wr, s the title implies, do hve politicl content. I suppose the most obvious ttempt t the integr tion right now is in the poetry of the women's movement. S.K.: You cnnot seprte poets from the society in which they function. The reltionship between the poet nd his world is n obligry theme; no poet is grnted exemption. He cnnot cnniblize himself indefinitely. Even his voidnce of is politics politicl gesture. The moot is question one of esthetic strtegies. When the blck revolution ws t its height, less thn decde go, the sympthies of most poets, I think, were with the blck revolutionries. And yet the poetry tht cme out of it ws, for the most corse prt, nd nd unredble. shpeless finlly Tht, of course, is not negte the virtue of the cuse for which it ws written. By the sme ken, most of the poems overtly incited by the women's libertion movement re diminished by their rnt nd rheric. Yets ws t lest prtly right when he sid tht the opposite of poet is the opinionted mn?dy he would hve dded "nd womn," despite the dmge his prose. INT.: Akhmv's poetry hs politicl content, does it not? S.K.: She's politicl poet, but in her work the politics re subsumed in the life. You're hrdly wre of the politicl content of the poems; wht moves you is her personl involvement in the issues tht mke the poem. For one of the of modern Russin exmple, "Requiem," msterpieces literture, is not ditribe ginst the Stlinist terror which blighted her life nd ok her son from her. Wht it conveys is sense of trgic lndscpe, the 82
desoltion of herts in hertless epoch. Akhmv lerned from Dnte the necessity for humn scle in depicting the crimes of hisry. INT.: How did you become interested in undertking such project s trnslting the poems of Ahkmv? S.K.: Through my friendship with Voznesensky I rediscovered my own Russin ncestry, which I hd lmost forgotten. And suddenly I felt close Rus sin poetry, s though I hd been witing her it for yers. Then I visited Russi in 1967 s prt of the Culturl Exchnge Progrm, nd I becme deeply involved in the lives nd ftes of her poets. Akhmv's pure nd unffected voice is the kind of speech I vlue. I think I cn lern from her. Tht's s reson s good ny for trying trnslte her. INT.: Is the obligtion you on s plce yourself trnslr mke sure tht voice comes through? Do you hve choose between fithfulness the literl version nd the mking of poem in English? S.K.: Tht's the crux of the problem? contrdiction of loylties. On the fce of it, there is no resolution. But tht doesn't deter you from ttempting the impossible. INT.: I'd like return for moment something we uched upon erlier. I cn't imgine how it must hve been begin writing in the literry situ tion of the Twenties. Were you intimidted by Eliot? Or is his dominnce of the poetry of the ge fiction of literry hisry? S.K.: It's not literry fiction t ll. To be born in my genertion is hve been born in the shdow of the gret nmes who belonged the previous genertion: Eliot, Pound, Frost, Robinson, Stevens, Willim Crlos Wil lims, lthough he ws more of democrtic spirit thn the others. Living in the country, I hd no literry friends, except for Roethke, who visited me nd with whom I occsionlly corresponded, exchnging mnuscripts. It didn't occur me tht the senril genertion might be interested in wht I ws doing, nd I didn't expect them be. Tody young poets feel perfectly free converse with their elders, nd this is one of the helthiest spects of the contemporry scene, this converstion on. going But for my genertion it ws inconceivble tht we would even hope for ny colloquy with or recognition from our seniors. Nothing hppened till I ws lmost 50 bte my nturl of isoltion. But the truth is tht I've never over gotten like loner. INT.: I'm sure tht between friendship you nd Roethke ws very importnt both of you. S.K.: Both of us needed nd support encourgement. For me, Ted ws link tht world of poetry with which I hd no other connection. When he cme visit me, he lwys brought news of other poets. I would her bout those he dmired most, the ones he sw, the ones he courted. The interesting spect of Roethke in his youth ws tht bove ll he respected forml excellence, s his erly poems indicte. Tht's where he relly lerned bout the freedoms he could lter entertin?from the restrints he prcticed in his erly work. 83 Criticism
INT.: I'd like sk you bout your method of working poem. Would you red "The Mn Upstirs"? SX: THE MAN UPSTAIRS* The old mn sick with boyhood fers, Whose thin shnks ride the nked blst, Innes; the gry somnmbulist Creks down interminble stirs, Dreming my future s his pst. A flower withers in its vse, A print detches from the wll, Beyond the lst electric bill Slow dys re crumbling in dys Without the unction of frewell. in reltion specific Tonight there suffers in my street The pssion of the silent clerk Whose drowned fce cries the windows drk Where once the bone of mercy bet. I turn; I perish in work. O Mgus with the lethern hnd, The wsted hert, the triling str, Time is your mdness, which I shre, next winter in mind... Blowing And love herself not there, not there. INT.: Beutiful. Tht's terrific poem. S.K.: I still like it, o; it's lwys mzed me tht none of the nthologists hve ever picked up tht one. They re rther incredibly imperceptive bout the poems tht lie t the core of one's work. INT. : The whole structure of the poem, its movement, is wht mkes it powerful for me, but I wnt concentrte on one detil of the lnguge: "I perish in work." A nive question, but I hope purposeful one, how do you come up with tht sort of discovery? S.K.: I hve sense of using the life, of exhusting it in the work itself. The nlogue, of course, is the dying imge involved with sex. As fr s the poet is concerned, life is lwys dying in rt. INT. : Do you keep notebook? S.K.: Yes. I'm down lwys putting lines, even in phrses, imges, psting clippings, nything tht teses my mind. I hve stcks nd stcks of mte ril tht interests nd excites me nd I keep collecting. There's so much of it, I cn never find nything specific?not if I'm looking for it. But if * Acknowledgment is mde Atlntic Monthly Press for permission reprint. 84
I'm lefing through my notebooks, something I jotted down months or yers go often ctches my eye. It's been there ll the time, sleeping, nd t the sme time it's been simmering in my own mind. And I look t it nd suddenly I cn see wht else it's hooked, wht other buried phenomen. And t tht point, when it signls its ttchment the lyers of the life, I cn use it. INT. : When is poem finished for you? S.K.: Tht's hrd question. I relly sy my poems, s I mentioned erlier. I keep putting down the words s I sy them. Usully, fter strting poem in longhnd, I type wht I hve, becuse I need get sense of its look on the pge. And then it's process of building up line fter line, discrd the erlier versions nd from scrtch. one ing strting gin Any poem cn involve up 100 sheets of pper, becuse it lwys strts from the beginning nd goes s fr s it cn. When it's blocked, I strt ll over gin nd try gther enough momentum brek through the brrier. Tht's more or less my method of When there re no more composition. impedi ments on the pge nd my originl impulse is exhusted, I go bed. I'm night-worker. INT. : How do you tech the writing of poetry? S.K.: Thoroughly. Pssiontely. Long go I discrded theories. The dnger of the poet-s-techer lies in his imposing his person on his students. I wel come ny kind of poet; I don't cre if he is my kind or not. Some of the best students I've worked with hve turned out be my own opposites. But tht doesn't bother me t ll. INT.: Does your ide of teching correspond your interprettion of your posi tion s edir nd judge of the Yle Series of Younger Poets? S.K.: I think it does. My obligtion there, first of ll, is red everything tht is submitted; secondly, be s open nd fir nd objective s I cn. I don't look for ny specific kind of poet when I red those mnuscripts; I'm for Let me looking poet. dd tht hs n nobody inside trck. All but one of the poets I've hve been picked perfect strngers. INT.: Your selected prose will be published by Atlntic Monthly Press next nd converstions. spring?essys Why now? S.K.: Mybe it's time for me find out whether ll the stuff I've turned out on poetry nd rt nd mkes sense politics ny when put gether. INT.: Here's cn vledicry question: you tlk bout the briefly direction own your is poetry now? tking S.K.: It's cler me tht I'm wrd more firly moving universe. expnsive I propose tke more risks thn I ever did. Thnk God I don't hve sk nyone else's permission do wht I wnt do. If I give it my im primtur, it's OK. Tht's the privilege nd insolence of ge. This interview ws conducted in Mr. Kunitz's home in New York City on Tnury 10,1974. 85 Criticism