What a great poem. Never heard of it, truly enjoyed it.
Interestingly, I know that John Donne made some serious waves when he wrote a treatise saying that, based on Christ’s deliberate martyrdom, suicide can be justified in extremely limited circumstances.
A while back I wrote an article about a Seattle man who killed himself with "death with dignity" drugs. The pro-assisted-suicide groups wanted to set him up as an example for the news media. It turned out that the doctors had found him competent and without any impaired judgment, despite the fact that he had been having suicidal thoughts for most of his life and tried to kill himself twice before when he was physically healthy. I wrote that he had long been half in love with easeful death. The assistant editor at the first Catholic publication I offered it to had no idea where the phrase came from and thought I had made it up, so insisted that I change it. I sighed at the ongoing death of Western civilization, and had it published elsewhere...
There are no taboo subjects in poetry. What matters in poetry is the effectiveness of the language. I didn’t know this poem, and I’m very glad to have met it. Thank you.
I was thinking how this poem is far less widely known than "Richard Cory," which appears, or used to appear, in every American Lit textbook (certainly the one I taught from when I taught 11th grade) --- and which situates the reader among the people on the sidewalk who have envied the subject his wealth and glamor and can then say, "Well, you never know, do you?" when he goes home and shoots himself. "Luke Havergal" is both a riskier and a better poem because it situates itself, and by extension the reader, in the mind of the suffering person so tantalized by the idea of death. It's a kind of radical empathy raised to the level of artistic integrity by the excellence of its form. I'm not sure I'm saying this especially well, but anyway, seems like an interesting exercise to set this poem next to "Richard Cory."
I have never seen this poem. Perhaps the subject makes it less popular. Thank you for sharing it and your thoughts on taboo and censorship. I am currently in the middle of a thread concerning suicide in a novel (The Road) and it is painful, but I think the art allows us to discuss the subject via proxy—a safer distance than a real flesh-and-blood person. Art can be used in a way to culturally process difficult topics in a larger group. I think those who promote banning “unacceptable” art do so out of fear—and, of course, making decisions out of fear is rarely prudent.
What a great poem. Never heard of it, truly enjoyed it.
Interestingly, I know that John Donne made some serious waves when he wrote a treatise saying that, based on Christ’s deliberate martyrdom, suicide can be justified in extremely limited circumstances.
A while back I wrote an article about a Seattle man who killed himself with "death with dignity" drugs. The pro-assisted-suicide groups wanted to set him up as an example for the news media. It turned out that the doctors had found him competent and without any impaired judgment, despite the fact that he had been having suicidal thoughts for most of his life and tried to kill himself twice before when he was physically healthy. I wrote that he had long been half in love with easeful death. The assistant editor at the first Catholic publication I offered it to had no idea where the phrase came from and thought I had made it up, so insisted that I change it. I sighed at the ongoing death of Western civilization, and had it published elsewhere...
Suicide has many forms. Just what is it when a Buddhist alights themselves, to a burning pyre, in order for their Chinese lords to hear?
There are no taboo subjects in poetry. What matters in poetry is the effectiveness of the language. I didn’t know this poem, and I’m very glad to have met it. Thank you.
I was thinking how this poem is far less widely known than "Richard Cory," which appears, or used to appear, in every American Lit textbook (certainly the one I taught from when I taught 11th grade) --- and which situates the reader among the people on the sidewalk who have envied the subject his wealth and glamor and can then say, "Well, you never know, do you?" when he goes home and shoots himself. "Luke Havergal" is both a riskier and a better poem because it situates itself, and by extension the reader, in the mind of the suffering person so tantalized by the idea of death. It's a kind of radical empathy raised to the level of artistic integrity by the excellence of its form. I'm not sure I'm saying this especially well, but anyway, seems like an interesting exercise to set this poem next to "Richard Cory."
Paul Simon wrote "Richard Cory." ;-)
Silly me, getting my American poets mixed up like that.
"Radical empathy" is kind of an awful phrase . . .
I have never seen this poem. Perhaps the subject makes it less popular. Thank you for sharing it and your thoughts on taboo and censorship. I am currently in the middle of a thread concerning suicide in a novel (The Road) and it is painful, but I think the art allows us to discuss the subject via proxy—a safer distance than a real flesh-and-blood person. Art can be used in a way to culturally process difficult topics in a larger group. I think those who promote banning “unacceptable” art do so out of fear—and, of course, making decisions out of fear is rarely prudent.