|
READ THIS
The poet is rummaging through old documents when he comes across a picture of his wife, but at a time
when they were still dating. He is initially shocked upon seeing it but then it brings back a sense of
nostalgia because it was this picture which had helped him through the fearful war years.
He is also reminded of the dreadful days of their marriage, when affection disappeared and their
relationship ended in divorce. Nevertheless, he keeps the picture and knows that one day he will look at
it again.
A NOTE ON THE POET
William De Witt Snodgrass was born in January 1926 in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. He graduated from
the local high school in 1943 and thereupon attended Geneva College until 1944 when he was drafted into
the United States navy for the remainder of World War II.
After he had been demobilized from the navy in 1946, he moved to the University of Iowa where he
enrolled in the Iowa Writers' Workshop, intending initially to become a playwright but eventually joining
the poetry workshop. He received a B.A. in 1949, Masters in 1951, and a Masters degree in Fine Arts in
1953.
The poet had a distinguished academic career, teaching at Cornell University, Rochester, Wayne State,
Syracuse, Old Dominion and, finally, the University of Delaware. He retired from teaching in 1994 and
thereupon devoted himself to his writing.
Although he disliked the title, Snodgrass became known as the father of "the confessional school of
poetry", a school that rose to prominence in America during the 1960s and of which Robert Lowell and
Sylvia Plath were adherents.
He was known to his friends as "Dee" but only published using his initials. He was married no less
than four times.
The poet won several awards in poetry, including the prestigious Pulitzer Prize for Poetry in 1960.
He died of lung cancer in 2009 at his home in Madison County, New York, at the age of 83. He was
survived by Kathleen Snodgrass, his fourth wife who was herself a recognised writer.
Have you looked at the questions
in the right column?
|
TEST YOURSELF!
Read the left column and then answer
the following questions:
"Well, our needs were different, then,
And our ideals came easy."
- What does the poet mean when he says, "Our needs were different, then."? (4)
[Need help?]
Needs of young people are very different from those of married couples. Their lifestyles tend to be more
simple. They can adapt to hardship more easily.
|
- In what way would their ideals have come easy? (2)
[Need help?]
Young people tend also to be more idealistic than older people. When one has few possessions to lose,
one can afford to be idealistic.
|
"Then through the war and those two long years
Overseas, the Japanese dead in their shacks
Among dishes, dolls, and lost shoes; I carried
This glimpse of you, there, to choke down my fear,
Prove it had been, that it might come back.
That was before we got married."
- To what war was the poet referring? (1)
[Need help?]
The poet was referring to World War II, more specifically to the period when the Americans were fighting
the Japanese after Pearl Harbour.
|
- How seriously did the poet take this war. How do you know? (4)
[Need help?]
The war was indeed very serious because it could at any moment have led to his death. Indeed, the poet
spoke of his fears.
On the other hand, the death of the Japanese soldiers appears to have had little meaning to him. He
equates their dead bodies to their discarded dishes, dolls and shoes which were lying about. They were
all one, all without much emotional meaning.
|
- Why would the photograph had enabled the poet "to choke down [his] fear"? (4)
[Need help?]
The picture enabled the poet to think of other things than war and killing. It enabled him to talk to his
fellow soldiers of the good times and the fun times he had had back at home before he had been drafted
into the navy.
|
- What is the poet's TONE as revealed in his words, "That was before we got married"? Explain
your choice. (4)
[Need help?]
The TONE is one of sarcasm or bitterness. The picture reminded the poet of the good times, the happy
times. But all that changed once he returned home and got married.
|
"That was before we got married.
Before we drained out one another's force
With lies, self-denial, unspoken regret
And the sick eyes that blame; before the divorce
And the treachery. Say it: before we met. Still,
I put back your picture. Someday, in due course,
I will find that it's still there."
- Explain what was wrong with the marriage. (6)
[Need help?]
The poet and his first wife had dated for some months before he had been drafted into the navy. For the
next two years, their relationship had been maintained only by means of letters. Their love was simple,
and most probably platonic. They didn't seriously get to know one another.
By the time that the war ended, their marriage was a foregone conclusion. Then everything changed.
They had both grown older, had both changed in their views. No longer was she "shy, delicate,
slender" -- especially after she had given birth to their child. She now had a mind of her own. Each
now lied to the other, refused to accept responsibility for things each had said and done.
|
- What does the poet mean by "the treachery"? (4)
[Need help?]
The word "treachery" could mean many things: unfaithfulness and possibly adultery; or simply
each going out of the way to hurt the other.
|
- Why does the poet keep the picture rather than throwing it away? (4)
[Need help?]
Despite all the painful memories of the marriage, the photograph nevertheless brings back nostalgic
memories of his life before and during the war, when the woman was still the person he loved and who
meant a great deal to him.
|
Is it possible for two people -- who had dated casually before the war -- to get together two year later,
with their only contact having been by way of snail-mail letters and then to make a success of
marriage? (10)
[Need help?]
Think this one through very carefully. They hadn't really got to know each other at all well when the poet
had been drafted into the navy. Letter writing is a deceptive thing, full of messages of love and affection,
much of which might not have meant very much.
After two years, each person had changed dramatically. Each was different. It was natural that they
should marry, but were not their differences now too great to manage? After all, success in marriage is
dependent upon changing little by little with the other.
But changing over a period of two years without the presence of the other? When they met again, it was
like two different people getting together. Perhaps if they had started dating all over again?
|
|
