Appealing to Myself,
In moment of prosperity—
Inadequate—were Life—
“Thou hast not Me, nor Me”—it said,
In Moment of Reverse—
“And yet Thou art industrious—
No need—hadst Thou—of us”?
My need—was all I had—I said—
The need did not reduce—
Because the food—exterminate—
The hunger—does not cease—
But diligence—is sharper—
Proportioned to the Chance—
To feed upon the Retrograde—
Enfeebles—the Advance—
-Fr828, J904, Fascicle 40, 1864
The logic of this poem, as best as I can make it out, goes like this.
Stanza 1: I’m appealing to myself (talking myself into the idea) that since I am prosperous right now and have this stuff, then life is adequate.
Stanza 2: But the stuff says to me: if your situation was to reverse itself, and you lost everything, it would be okay, because you are industrious.
Stanza 3: The poet answers this by saying “Well, yes, it’s true, I’m industrious because all I’ve got is my need. The hunger doesn’t go away when the stuff is gone.”
Stanza 4: Therefore, the poet concludes, I won't focus on what I've already attained, because to focus on the past weakens the chance for future possibility. I will be diligent, and therefore sharper, focused on that chance.
This gets down to our basic humanity. "My need was all I had." We are needy. One would hope the things we have would satisfy our needs, but, no, Life is still inadequate. (What's missing?) And even if it did make life adequate, we might lose the stuff, and then life will be even less than inadequate. So all you can do is be industrious to try to fill your need. But whatever you fill your need with better be, like food, of substance to your soul. Forget about the last meal, though, if you can, and focus on the chance to advance to the next one.
Let's look at that "This, or This," for a moment. It's meaningless stuff, empty pronouns, insert any substitute. What the "This, or This" is really a substitute for? It's a substitute for the "Me, or Me," the "us." Dickinson makes that sly move between stanza one and two.
Have you seen the movie The Jerk? There’s a scene in which the character played by Bernadette Peters leaves the character played by Steve Martin because wealth has changed him and therefore he is no longer the man she married. He walks away and says, “Well I'm gonna to go then! And I don't need any of this. I don't need this stuff, and I don't need *you*. I don't need anything. Except this. [picks up an ashtray] And that's the only thing I need is *this*. I don't need this or this. Just this ashtray. And this paddle game. - The ashtray and the paddle game and that's all I need... And this remote control. - The ashtray, the paddle game, and the remote control, and that's all I need... And these matches. - The ashtray, and these matches, and the remote control, and the paddle ball... And this lamp. - The ashtray, this paddle game, and the remote control, and the lamp, and that's all *I* need. And that's *all* I need too. I don't need one other thing, not one... I need this. - The paddle game and the chair, and the remote control, and the matches for sure. Well what are you looking at? What do you think I'm some kind of a jerk or something! - And this. That's all I need. [walking outside] The ashtray, the remote control, the paddle game, and this magazine, and the chair. [outside now] And I don't need one other thing, except my dog. [dog growls at him] I don't need my dog.”
That’s a deep comedic take into what I think Dickinson is getting at with "This, or This" becoming "Me, or Me."
In the poem, as well as the scene from the Jerk, there is a thin line between stuff and what you really need, Love. The Dickinson poem is tricky because the “This, or This,” or “it” in the next stanza, is impersonal, and seemingly immaterial. But the idea of “Me, or Me” and “us” makes it seem personal. So which is it? Dickinson is blurring the line between material and spiritual prosperity in this poem, as it so often is in real life.
There is that “Life” in the first stanza to consider. The poet seems to be saying that the Life (of stuff, without Love) is inadequate. She's trying to appeal to herself that this stuff makes up for it. The stuff says no. Dickinson says all I have is need though. The need here seems to be referring to the "stuff," but its really pointing toward the “chance” to make a Life, to ascertain what the poet really needs.
“If I no longer had Life,” the poem is saying, “I could try to appeal to myself that the things I own would make up for the loss of You, my Life.” Life, at the time this poem was written, meant Sue for Emily, just as it means Bernadette Peters for Steve Martin in The Jerk (and for awhile, in real life.) None of that “stuff” will mean anything when the Life of the home is gone.
This kind of "appeal" is the root of the great American Dream tragedy. Think of The Great Gatsby, or Death of a Salesman, or, The Jerk. : (
The logic of this poem, as best as I can make it out, goes like this.
Stanza 1: I’m appealing to myself (talking myself into the idea) that since I am prosperous right now and have this stuff, then life is adequate.
Stanza 2: But the stuff says to me: if your situation was to reverse itself, and you lost everything, it would be okay, because you are industrious.
Stanza 3: The poet answers this by saying “Well, yes, it’s true, I’m industrious because all I’ve got is my need. The hunger doesn’t go away when the stuff is gone.”
Stanza 4: Therefore, the poet concludes, I won't focus on what I've already attained, because to focus on the past weakens the chance for future possibility. I will be diligent, and therefore sharper, focused on that chance.
This gets down to our basic humanity. "My need was all I had." We are needy. One would hope the things we have would satisfy our needs, but, no, Life is still inadequate. (What's missing?) And even if it did make life adequate, we might lose the stuff, and then life will be even less than inadequate. So all you can do is be industrious to try to fill your need. But whatever you fill your need with better be, like food, of substance to your soul. Forget about the last meal, though, if you can, and focus on the chance to advance to the next one.
Let's look at that "This, or This," for a moment. It's meaningless stuff, empty pronouns, insert any substitute. What the "This, or This" is really a substitute for? It's a substitute for the "Me, or Me," the "us." Dickinson makes that sly move between stanza one and two.
Have you seen the movie The Jerk? There’s a scene in which the character played by Bernadette Peters leaves the character played by Steve Martin because wealth has changed him and therefore he is no longer the man she married. He walks away and says, “Well I'm gonna to go then! And I don't need any of this. I don't need this stuff, and I don't need *you*. I don't need anything. Except this. [picks up an ashtray] And that's the only thing I need is *this*. I don't need this or this. Just this ashtray. And this paddle game. - The ashtray and the paddle game and that's all I need... And this remote control. - The ashtray, the paddle game, and the remote control, and that's all I need... And these matches. - The ashtray, and these matches, and the remote control, and the paddle ball... And this lamp. - The ashtray, this paddle game, and the remote control, and the lamp, and that's all *I* need. And that's *all* I need too. I don't need one other thing, not one... I need this. - The paddle game and the chair, and the remote control, and the matches for sure. Well what are you looking at? What do you think I'm some kind of a jerk or something! - And this. That's all I need. [walking outside] The ashtray, the remote control, the paddle game, and this magazine, and the chair. [outside now] And I don't need one other thing, except my dog. [dog growls at him] I don't need my dog.”
That’s a deep comedic take into what I think Dickinson is getting at with "This, or This" becoming "Me, or Me."
In the poem, as well as the scene from the Jerk, there is a thin line between stuff and what you really need, Love. The Dickinson poem is tricky because the “This, or This,” or “it” in the next stanza, is impersonal, and seemingly immaterial. But the idea of “Me, or Me” and “us” makes it seem personal. So which is it? Dickinson is blurring the line between material and spiritual prosperity in this poem, as it so often is in real life.
There is that “Life” in the first stanza to consider. The poet seems to be saying that the Life (of stuff, without Love) is inadequate. She's trying to appeal to herself that this stuff makes up for it. The stuff says no. Dickinson says all I have is need though. The need here seems to be referring to the "stuff," but its really pointing toward the “chance” to make a Life, to ascertain what the poet really needs.
“If I no longer had Life,” the poem is saying, “I could try to appeal to myself that the things I own would make up for the loss of You, my Life.” Life, at the time this poem was written, meant Sue for Emily, just as it means Bernadette Peters for Steve Martin in The Jerk (and for awhile, in real life.) None of that “stuff” will mean anything when the Life of the home is gone.
This kind of "appeal" is the root of the great American Dream tragedy. Think of The Great Gatsby, or Death of a Salesman, or, The Jerk. : (
-/)dam Wade l)eGraff
The "This, or This" scene from The Jerk
“But diligence—is sharper—
ReplyDeleteProportioned to the Chance—“
These two lines, opening as they do the final stanza, stand out to me as important. Perhaps they contain the hard-earned wisdom of the poem? If they do, it’s a wisdom steeped in the realism of the rejected lover (as, in a sense, Emily had been rejected by Sue).
Having failed in her efforts to secure love for herself, Dickinson is saying: the key is to be more circumspect in the future! Maybe our efforts at meeting our desires will be more effective, she suggests, when we narrow the field of what we want to what is actually available to us — i.e. “Proportioned to the Chance.” Otherwise all we are stuck with is insatiable need.
Seen in this light, the poem could be about letting go. Letting go of “stuff,” as you say, and also of unrealistic expectations.
Interestingly, though, Dickinson did not follow this path at all. She stayed true and burned with her loves, even when they were no longer available to her. Again and again in her poems she refuses to narrow her desires, but instead goes the other way and opens the field to immortality and eternity.
"opens the field to immortality and eternity" is as good a way as any to put it.
ReplyDeleteSometimes Dickinson's poetry does seem aimed more at a general reader than at Sue (or her cousins, or herself, etc). This is one of them. It's a tough poem to get though because each response doesn't immediately follow from the one before. Or, rather, it does, but it requires some interstitial thought to get there.
But yeah, the realization in the third stanza that our needs are all we have is a quiet revelation. Once this realization is stated (the need beneath the stuff), then the next move is to stop looking at the past, and start focusing on the future. The "advance" at the end of this poem has a strange weight to it. The advance of what? Eternity and Immortality?