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,
*It's just our Lambskin Festival.
O.K.
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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> <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 for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a message dated 5/30/2015 3:47:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
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
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5941 / Virus Database: 4354/9906 - Release Date: 05/30/15
