Revising a poem is it seems to me always dangerous, that is if it is a
good poem . . . or maybe I should say it "can" be dangerous. The poet
if he is looking at a poem written sometime, maybe years, earlier cannot
put himself into the same frame of mind. That is, he would not be able
to have written that same poem on the day years later when he is
reviewing it. Instead he tries to read it objectively: does he still
like it? Does it hang together? Does it express something he still
agrees with? -- that sort of thing.
Now in the case of the change from "love one another or die to love one
another and die," when I read this poem just now trying to put myself
into the frame of mind of considering what I just wrote above, I noticed
a (seeming) logical inconsistency: In the last stanza he writes, "May
I, composed like them / Of Eros and of dust, / Beleagured by the same /
Negation and despair, / Show an affirming flame." Especially if I had
written this poem years earlier and couldn't completely recapture my
frame of mind I would notice that "Eros and dust" conflicts with "love
or die." "Love one another or die" might seem maudlin, and "Eros and
dust," of course, scientifically true.
Or -- Philosophers disguised as critics (or maybe one needs to be a
philosopher in order to be a critic) have made (or seen?) this poem as a
perceptive evaluation of Europe and the War at the time it was written,
but perhaps Auden was merely writing of his own despair, "love one
another or die" having a particular "other" in mind at the time, and
later, recalling in a general way his having been rejected and
abandoned, abandoned the "or" for an "and": less maudlin and hopeful;
more "realistic" in Auden's mind; although "What mad Nijinsky wrote /
about Diaghilev / is true of the human heart: struck me as puzzling. I
would have gotten rid of that before I did the "and." But then Auden
wanted to get rid of the whole poem; which puzzled critics.
Lawrence
On 5/31/2015 5:32 AM, Donal McEvoy wrote:
>Even Auden's choice of "and" seems to me to diminish the soul of the poem. The "and die" version reads that there are two things all human beings must do: one is "love one another" and the second is "die." >
Wystan could defend his change. The "must" of loving one another and the "must" of die are distinct but, in the theme of the poem, inextricably linked: in non-poetic terms, we "must" die because we have no choice otherwise but we "must" as in "ought to" love, where we have a choice otherwise. But Auden plays on "must" having both a sense of factual necessity and normative-imperative. By putting them together, the poet is trying to make to the point that the normative-imperative of "love" is a kind of factual necessity. In his changed version, this point is made more subtly because "or" is changed to "and". This anyways is the aim, poetically: to load the "must" of loving with the force of the "must" of dying, and the loading comes from the implicit idea [explicit and less subtle where "or" is used] that if we fail to love we shall precipitate our demise. In the revised version, Auden aims to suggest this thought, via the ambivalence of "must", while explicitly accepting the inevitability of death. In the revised version this alignment is not only more subtle but is meant to avoid possible shallowness in the earlier version where it might seem to be suggested that through love we can escape death rather than merely delay the inevitable. Conversely, the acknowledged inevitability of death is meant to reinforce the sense of factual necessity whereby we "must" love.
How well this works is another question, but it does not lack poetic sense.
Dnl
On Saturday, 30 May 2015, 20:06, Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I thank JL for posting this. I've long known of the change that Auden later made and it has never made any sense to me. I don't think Auden ever seriously thought of changing it to read: "and/or". That's atrocious. Even Auden's choice of "and" seems to me to diminish the soul of the poem. The "and die" version reads that there are two things all human beings must do: one is "love one another" and the second is "die." Both are inescapable for all human beings. But we that is NOT true. Obviously, we do not have to "love another" -- in fact, we humans seldom do. But yes, we all must die. The earth is going to go poof eventually, but that is not germane to the poem. The poem says, Take care of one another, asshole people, OR war will kill us all long before the big poof. Not loving one another will bring death to us all. You have a choice. THAT'S THE POEM.
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx <mailto:Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> for DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
In a message dated 5/30/2015 3:47:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I sense something wrong. Somewhere.
In the mid-1950s Auden began to refuse permission to editors who
asked to
reprint the poem "September 1, 1939" ("I sit in one of the dives") in
anthologies.
In 1955, Auden did allow Oscar Williams to include it complete in The New
Pocket Anthology of American Verse, but altered the most famous
line to
read "We must love one another and die." (*).
Cheers,
Speranza
(*) Apparently, Oscar Williams (**) had suggested that the line
would best
read:
We must love another another and/or die.
(**)
"Dear Wystan,
Thank you for your letter. I see the corrections, and wonder if
you would
consider mine:
"We must love one another and/or die."
This seems to be a good compromise in your doubts about whether to
use "or"
or "and".
You know, after all" "and/or" IS a grammatical 'conjunction', shall we
say, used to indicate that one or more of the cases it connects
may occur."
For example, the sentence "He will eat cake, pie, and/or brownies"
indicates that although the person may eat any of the three listed
desserts, the
choices are not exclusive; the person may eat one, two, or all
three of the
choices.
I'm sure that's what you are more or less meaning by correcting
"We must
love one another or die" to "We must love one another and die".
I like "and/or". It is used to describe the precise "or" in logic and
mathematics, while an "or" in spoken language might indicate
inclusive or or
exclusive or, as you are well aware. This may confuse literary
critics of your
poems.
Granted, "and/or" has been used in official, legal and business
documents
since the mid-19th century, even if evidence of broader use
appears in the
20th century, to which your poem belongs.
You must have heard some references on English usage strongly
criticize it.
Fowler, for one, in his English Usage describes it as "ugly" but surely
ugliness is in the eye of Fowler.
Strunk and White, too, say that it "damages a sentence and often
leads to
confusion or ambiguity" but ambiguity, as Empson notes, is a GOOD
thing when
it comes to poetry, no?
For the record, the Chicago Manual of Style calls it
"Janus-faced", which I
thought you'd like.
Two alternatives have been proposed for a phrase meaning "x and/or y".
You'll excuse this long missive, but it's Sunday!
The first alternative is to replace it with "x or y or both".
The second is to simply use "x or y", relying on context to determine
whether the "or" here is intended to be inclusive or exclusive.
The word "and/or" either can be used to convey mutual exclusivity.
When using either as a conjunction, it can be applied]to more than two
elements in a series.
Thus, to use my previous example -- not yours --
"He will eat either cake, pie, or brownies"
appropriately indicates that the choices are mutually exclusive.
If the function of or is clear from the context, it is not necessary,
you'll grant, to use either as a conjunction:
Person 1: You may select one item for dessert.
Person 2: What are my choices?
Person 1: You may eat cake, pie, or brownies.
Since you know lawyers (Hart is teaching conceptual analysis to
them at
Oxford, your alma mater), the phrase has come under criticism in
both American
and British courts. But should we take that criticism seriously?
Some American judges have called "and/or" a "freakish fad," an
"accuracy-destroying symbol," and "meaningless."
In a Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion from 1935 (a few years before you
wrote your poem), Justice Fowler referred to it as "that
befuddling, nameless
thing, that Janus-faced verbal monstrosity, neither word nor
phrase, the
child of a brain of someone too lazy or too dull to know what he
did mean."
The Kentucky Supreme Court said it was a "much-condemned
conjunctive-disjunctive crutch of sloppy thinkers."
On top of things, the Florida Supreme Court has held that use of
and/or
results in a nullity, stating (I quote verbatim): "we take our
position with
that distinguished company of lawyers who have condemned its use.
It is one
of those inexcusable barbarisms which were sired by indolence and
damned by
indifference, and has no more place in legal terminology than the
vernacular of Uncle Remus has in Holy Writ. I am unable to divine
how such
senseless jargon becomes current. The coiner of it certainly had
no appreciation
for terse and concise law English."
However, other authorities point out that it is usually quite
unambiguous,
and can be the most efficient way to indicate inclusive or --
which is what
you need, Wystan.
Adams and Kaye said, "It does, after all, have a specific
meaning—X and/or
Y means X or Y or both."
It is particularly damaging in legal writing, some allege,
granted, because
a bad-faith reader of a contract can supposedly pick whichever
suits him
or her, the and or the or.
Courts called on to interpret it have applied a wide variety of
standards,
with little agreement.
Anyway, hope this finds you well,
Oscar."
----
(***) REFERENCES:
Fowler, H.W. A dictionary of modern English usage (2nd ed., rev.
by Sir
Ernest Gowers. ed.). Oxford, Eng.: Clarendon Press.
Strunk, Jr., W. and E. White, Elements of style (3rd ed.). New York:
Macmillan.
Good usage versus common usage. The Chicago Manual of Style Online
(16th
ed.). University of Chicago Press.
The American Heritage Book of English Usage. "Grammar: Traditional
Rules,
Word Order, Agreement, and Case"
Bryan A., Garner. Garner on Language and Writing: Selected Essays and
Speeches of Bryan A. Garner. American Bar Association.
In the case of Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v.
Tollefson, 263
N.W. 376 at 377 (1935).
Cochrane v. Fla. E. Coast Rwy. Co., 145 So. 217 (1932). See also,
Henry P.
Trawick, Jr., Florida Practice & Procedure § 6:7 (2011-2012).
Adams, K. and Kaye. A. "Revisiting the ambiguity of "and" and
"or" in
legal drafting". St. John's Law Review.
Garner, B. "Looking for words to kill? Start with these." Student
Lawyer
35.1, 12-14. American Bar Association.
Shuy, R. "Legal uses of and/or…or something". Cited works include
David
Mellinkoff, The Language of the Law (Little Brown) and Larry Solan, The
Language of Judges (Chicago).
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
<http://www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html>
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.5941 / Virus Database: 4354/9906 - Release Date: 05/30/15
